[lkml]   [2005]   [Mar]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: RFD: Kernel release numbering
Neil Brown <> wrote:
> But more recently I have discovered that quite a few key developers
> develop against Linus' kernel and submit patches directly to him,
> apparently bypassing Andrew. This leads to them holding back patches
> when a release is approaching, rather than sending them straight to
> Andrew for -mm and wider testing. This doesn't sound like a good
> thing.

Only davem, AFAIK. All the other trees get auto-sucked into -mm for
testing. Generally the owners of those trees make the decision as to which
of their code has been sufficiently well-tested for a Linus merge, and when
that should happen.

> Now, I know our movement is all about freedom (and openness), and you
> don't want to force developers into any behaviour patterns that aren't
> essential, but I think it would be nice if there was some uniform
> perspective on how patches should flow so that we all understood what
> each other were doing.
> My own preference would be:
> - all patches go to Andrew and appear in -mm promptly
> - Linus only gets patches from -mm
> - most patches are only passed to Linus after they have
> been in an -mm release for at least .... 1 week (?)
> - some patches go straight to Linus even before a -mm
> release if maintainer + Andrew + Linus review and agree
> - some patches stay in -mm for extended periods getting refined
> before making their way to Linus.
> - some patches get ditched from -mm and never make it to Linus.

That's basically what happens now, except I don't physically send the
patches from those 32 bk trees to Linus.

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:0.499 / U:0.600 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site