[MeeGo-dev] Kernel process comment

[Arjan van de Ven]

On 4/28/2010 13:29, Andrew Flegg wrote:
> Arjan wrote:
>>
>> It's not Intel solely being responsible.
>>
> [...]
>>
>> Also I don't understand what the beef is.
>
> The problem, as I see it, is that *any* Intel employee can bypass the sign-off procedure for the MeeGo kernel, whereas no-one else can.
>
> Intel may have internal processes that prevent that, but it's not something the *MeeGo* project should rely on.
>
> I'm fine with a defined group of Intel engineers being the initial gatekeepers of the MeeGo kernel, but an @intel.com email address shouldn't let you bypass those gatekeepers - which is the point that started this thread.
>

I think this indeed is a bug in the document for sure.

Ideally, we follow the exact same format for patches that lkml follows. And for sure, the output of "git format-patch" on a Linus git tree 
should be perfectly fine for us.... backporting a patch from upstream git should always be fine and clean.
I don't think we should make things more heavy weight than this.

If you want a patch included, and it's already upstream, posting the git-format-patch for that patch to the mailing list or bugzilla (with 
of course a few sentences of why you want this patch backported) should be all that's needed.
If your patch is not upstream quite yet, same format but with explanation of where it is at in the upstream process should be fine as well.

for non-patch additions, such as config changes... just sending an email with why/what/where..... and we can either just do that or discuss 
more if there's side effects or other things the maintainers might be worried about. There's nothing wrong with some healthy discussion to 
get to the best outcome.