lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [May]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Slow DOWN, please!!!
From
Date
Personally I think the current process works reasonably well, though
as we should always try to improve it further...

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:

> On Thu, 1 May 2008, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> - opens all the debates about running parallel branches, such as, would it be
>> better to /branch/ for 2.6.X-rc, and then keep going full steam on
>> the trunk?

I think you could branch at ~ rc3 (strictly critical fixes only from
this point). This way 'next' wouldn't be low-maintenance but the
release branch would be.

I.e., the merge window would open at ~ rc3. At 'final', the merge window
would probably be already closed :-)

Something like:
- 2.6.26-rc3: 2.6.27 merge window opens, 2.6.26 - fixes only
- 1 week later: no core changes for 2.6.27 except fixes (drivers only?)

2.6.26* would receive backports from 2.6.27 (cherry-picking? applying
on 2.6.26 and merging?).

The "no open regressions" rule would make sense certainly - unless in
a specific case agreed otherwise.

Perhaps if needed you could let other people do the final release
("stable" extension) and concentrate on the trunk.

> If I'd have both a 'next' branch _and_ a full 2-week merge window, there's
> no upside.

Shorter cycle is the big upside.

Perhaps we could start branching later at first - say at 2.6.26-rc5,
and see how does it work.
--
Krzysztof Halasa


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-05-04 15:51    [W:0.161 / U:22.972 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site