Openmoko kernel change process (Was: [UPSTREAM] Move backlight handling out of pcf50633 driver)
sean at mcneil.com
Sun Oct 19 23:59:53 CEST 2008
Rod Whitby wrote:
> If we can all agree that changes to existing Openmoko kernel
> functionality must be RFC'd on the openmoko kernel mailing list, in a
> way that invites comment and review, then I don't think there's any
> argument between anyone here.
> Just like downstream distos of the mainline Linux kernel need to
> subscribe to the kernel mailing list (or some summarising service), so
> should Openmoko distro developers subscribe to the openmoko kernel list.
In practice, this is an excellent idea. I'm afraid, however, that there
might be times when something gets discussed incidentally and slips
through the cracks. Perhaps some sympathetic soul might rebroadcast such
discussions to email tagged with [RFC] when they notice such an occurrence?
>> 4) OM can do anything they want with the kernel. It is their project.
>> They have control over it. If you don't like it then put up your own git
> I think Andy has stated a couple of times that he is keen for the
> Openmoko kernel to be useable as-is by all the downstream distros if at
> all possible, so it seems that Openmoko themselves would prefer to
> discuss and compromise before downstream distros resort to forking the
> Openmoko kernel tree.
Yes, both Andy and OM as a whole are very keen to work with the
community. My not-so-subtle point is that OM has veto rights on any action.
More information about the openmoko-kernel