status of ppc64 patches

Olof Johansson olof at
Wed Oct 20 11:03:01 EST 2004

On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 07:22:29PM -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> > I think we should consider bringing another architecture maintainer on 
> > board to help spread out the load of reviewing and approving 
> > architecture patches.  Somebody like Olof.  Barring that I would like to 
> The fact that a web page is slightly out of date and some minor
> non-bugfix patches were not forwarded upstream during the late 2.6.9-rc
> series fails to convince me that such a change is needed.

Agreed. The page is there for the maintainers to track their work, not
for us to track them.  :-)  I hope that each person tracks their own
work and follows up as needed.

And even if, in the future, current maintainers need help looking at
patches, there's no need to promote someone (myself or others) to a
"full" maintainer just to pitch in and help out. Anyone has the
opportunity to look at a patch and ask questions about it or say that
they agree or disagree with it. This happens every day on LKML and other
lists, there's no reason we should work differently on our architecture

Also: Regarding re-basing patches: It has to be the duty of the developer
of the patch to re-base it to current trees if it will no longer apply
cleanly. I wouldn't expect Anton or Paul to forward-port my patches,
just as little as I would expect Andrew Morton or Linus to do so.


More information about the Linuxppc64-dev mailing list