lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: Proposal: Linux Kernel Patch Management System
    Date
    Alexander Viro writes:
    > On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Mitchell Blank Jr wrote:
    > > Yes, for the stuff discussed on lkml patch dependencies should be
    > > pretty minimal. However, if I were discussing something on linux-m68k
    > > it would be common to say "kernel is 2.5.18 + m68k-native-patch-2.5.18 +
    > > mac68k-patch-2.5.18"
    >
    > I'm less than sure that keeping architecture-specific development out of
    > the main tree is a good thing. Usual scenario (seen that quite a few
    > times): tree for architecture foo is based on mainstream version x.y.z,
    > in x.y.z+5 change happens in the mainstream tree and in-tree variant of
    > arch/foo/* is updated. In x.y.z+10 foo-specific stuff gets synced with the
    > main tree and we are getting a huge mess, since repository for foo didn't
    > get the updates back in x.y.z+5.

    Note also that breaking the architecture maintainer "tree"-like
    organisation of submission of patches will cause problems. For example,
    I regularly keep stuff out of Linus' tree because its not suitable for
    the main-stream kernel (eg, the MM support for old 26-bit ARM stuff).
    Therefore, you'll probably end up with a lot of patches with dependencies
    that'd never be satisfied.

    Also, for a lot of this types of stuff, there won't be a "tag" which can
    be used to uniquely identify stuff either. As you say, architecture
    maintainers don't get their stuff sync'd to Linus on every single kernel
    version update. In fact, sometimes when they do, the patches don't make
    it in.

    Then, we move on to the next version, and the old patch becomes obsoleted
    by a new patch, which then makes all the other related-patches obsolete.

    I already run a patch tracking system for the ARM development at
    http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/ and it is designed to be
    as simple as possible - more or less just a representation of state
    rather than a full-blown tracking and inter-dependency system. And no,
    it doesn't do bugs, but it could be extended to that probably quite
    easily. (you've got me thinking now...)
    _____
    |_____| ------------------------------------------------- ---+---+-
    | | Russell King rmk@arm.linux.org.uk --- ---
    | | | | http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html / / |
    | +-+-+ --- -+-
    / | THE developer of ARM Linux |+| /|\
    / | | | --- |
    +-+-+ ------------------------------------------------- /\\\ |
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38    [W:0.033 / U:2.348 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site