[PATCH] MAINTAINERS: extend Raspberry Pi entry
mzoran at crowfest.net
Sun Jan 29 14:24:08 PST 2017
On Sun, 2017-01-29 at 14:02 -0800, Michael Zoran wrote:
> Perhaps you have some idiot that doesn't know what they are doing.
> you confine their changes to a certain directory, in theory it would
> limit that amount of damage that could be done(to a certain extent).
> At the very minimum, I would think that hardware specific drivers
> should be handled differently then core drivers or non-platform
> specific drivers.
> I mean really, why should the vendor of the RPI have to deal with a
> gazillion requests to change the default built configuration.
> But then again, having everything in one tree makes it easy to make
Basically, what I'm thinking is this:
Have a bcm283x module that is somehow changed locally and tested
locally, but the whole module gets published to the larger tree as a
snapshot. Anybody that normally submits changes to bcm283x can change
any file. I wouldn't take things to the extreme of having an owner of
the i2c module and another owner of the SPI module. The modules should
be reasonably large.
If it's better to have binary drops or source code drops I'm not sure.
Source drops with some change history makes more sense to me.
As for the signed off part or requiring multiple signed off bys, that
seems broken to me. The idea of having multiple people approve of
every single change is awesome. But at the same time it needs to be
built into the software revision control system. I mean, I e-mail a
patch or change with my name. I really don't have any idea, control,
or verification that the change I e-mail is actually the change that is
getting applied with my name on it.
More information about the linux-rpi-kernel