Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 23:20:26 +0000 From: "Igor Mozolevsky" <igor@hybrid-lab.co.uk> To: ticso@cicely.de Cc: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Peter Schuller <peter.schuller@infidyne.com> Subject: Re: Improving the handling of PR:s Message-ID: <a2b6592c0801111520n173b4240p41d105c936f425ee@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20080111211019.GC79270@cicely12.cicely.de> References: <478556AD.6090400@bsdforen.de> <20080110003524.GB5188@soaustin.net> <200801111935.50821.peter.schuller@infidyne.com> <20080111211019.GC79270@cicely12.cicely.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/01/2008, Bernd Walter <ticso@cicely12.cicely.de> wrote: > Another point about hardware is that a patch might influence other > hardware handled by the same driver, which can't be verified by the > submitter nor the committer. > This is especially true with workarounds, which might only be required > for specific chip revisions. Which can only be verified/fixed once the patch is merged into a branch and new PRs are filed, if everyone used the approach of "let's not touch it because something might go wrong", nobody would fly because they might be involved in a plane-crash (of a similar model of a plane, just slightly different configuration)... The procedure would be effectively: patch->commit->[fixed|PR->limit the scope of the patch->commit]+ Drawback: more work for the committers. Advantages: people feel rewarded for contributing patches, more hardware support... Voila! Igor :-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?a2b6592c0801111520n173b4240p41d105c936f425ee>