More agressive kernel configuration merges

[Loïc Minier]

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> I have preliminary patches implementing this scheme.  What do people
> thing of the tradeoffs here?  I am thinking that the full merge would
> allow us to better describe our intent when changing options.

 That's excellent, thanks; I think it will help avoiding some of the
 issues Oliver and I raised during the kernel config session at UDS.

 I agree there's a risk that you lose track of what is really
 implemented in all architectures; perhaps you want to have an override
 file which lists options which can go missing in some arches?  e.g. if
 a particular feature is missing, this would document that you reviewed
 that feature and understand it's not supported, but you want to use it
 nevertheless on most arches.  We could point people at this file for a
 constantly up-to-date "Known missing features" list.

-- 
Loïc Minier