[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Proposal: Linux Kernel Patch Management System

On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Mitchell Blank Jr wrote:

> Alexander Viro wrote:
> > BTW, any bug reports starting with "kernel is x.y.z + FOO42069 + K314 +
> > <long list of patches>" will be cheerfully flushed down the toilet here,
> > no matter what system of dependencies is going to be in place.
> 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.

Having all stuff in one place may help, but...

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38    [W:0.088 / U:0.260 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site