lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [26]   [last100]   RSS-feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Complete thread (EXPERIMENTAL)
/
DateThu, 26 Apr 2007 21:57:58 +0200 (MEST)
FromJan Engelhardt <>
SubjectRe: Linux 2.6.21
Digg This

On Apr 26 2007 09:40, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:

For example, I can certainly say that after 2.6.21, I'm likely to be very unhappy merging something that isn't "obviously safe". I knew the timer changes were potentially painful, I just hadn't realized just *how* painful they would be (we had some SATA/IDE changes too, of course, it's not all just about the timers, those just ended up being more noticeable to me than some of the other things were).

Perhaps do one at a time [ at the cost of queueing other stuff, yeah :( ] Like: 2.6.21 - only NO_HZ & hrtimers, and the SATA code in .22. Probably does not work out in reality, so perhaps just live with long rc cycles. (Let rc8 come.)

So we should have somebody like Christoph running -mm, and when things break, we'll just sic Christoph on whoever broke it, and teach people proper fear and respect! As it is, I think people tend to send things to -mm a bit *too* eagerly, because there is no downside - Andrew is a "cheap date" testing-wise, and always puts out ;)

Yes, perhaps we need a weakchanges-mm ("weak" is inteded, not to be confused with week) that can carry stuff like doc updates, Kconfig updates, etc. - patches that are a little more than -trivial.


Jan
-- 
\
ISP Services
Valid XHTML 1.0!\ /
Valid CSS! Last update: 2007-04-26 20:03    [W:0.275 / U:0.060 seconds]
©2003-2005 Jasper Spaans