[lkml]   [2005]   [Mar]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: RFD: Kernel release numbering
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> In fact, if somebody maintained that kind of tree, especially in BK, it
> would be trivial for me to just pull from it every once in a while (like
> ever _day_ if necessary). But for that to work, then that tree would have
> to be about so _obviously_ not wild patches that it's a no-brainer.
> So what's the problem with this approach? It would seem to make everybody
> happy: it would reduce my load, it would give people the alternate "2.6.x
> base kernel plus fixes only" parallell track, and it would _not_ have the
> testability issue (because I think a lot of people would be happy to test
> that tree, and if it was always based on the last 2.6.x release, there
> would be no issues.

The only problem I see with this -- and its a minor problem -- is that
some patches that belong in the 2.6.X.Y tree go straight to you/Andrew,
rather than to $sucker.

It's perfectly workable from a BK standpoint to do

-> linux-2.6 commit
-> cpcset into linux-2.6.X.Y [see Documentation/BK-usage/cpcset]
-> pull from linux-2.6.X.Y into linux-2.6 [dups cset, but no
real code change]

but that causes dups in the BK changelog and history. Not a big deal,
though, just a minor technical nit.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:10    [W:0.456 / U:0.652 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site