lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Elaboration on "Equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree"
Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:42 PM, <david@lang.hm> wrote:
>> - Show quoted text -
>> On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>> OK small silly example is convincing distributions it may be a good
>>> idea to carry linux-next kernel packages as options to users to
>>> hopefully down the road reduce the delta between what they carry and
>>> what is actually upstream.
>>
>> linux-next is a testing tree for developers, it changes day to day, doesn't
>> contain all relavent changes, and is definantly _not_ something that distros
>> should be pushing to users.
>
> Why not? Just as people may want to get bleeding edge wireless I don't
> see why a user may not want to simply get bleeding edge wireless and
> bleeding edge audio, and video.

They want wireless to work and audio to not break.

> The latest RC series helps but lets
> face it there are also a lot of good stuff queued for the -next
> releases as well. The way I'm seeing this is if a user has no support
> for a device on their system it should look something like this:
>
> Distribution kernel -->
> Distribution next stable kernel release (2.6.27 --> 2.6.28) -->
> Distribution RC kernel (if one is available) | kernel.org RC kernel -->
> Development tree kernel for a specific device -->
> Staging
>
> If the have multiple devices which are not yet supported by the latest
> RC kernel but on -next then you have little options but I think a
> concrete one should exist and it does.

Testers for linux-next are certainly welcome, but these testers need to
understand what the actual topic of linux-next is.

It is an integration-testing tree (for what is anticipated to be part of
Linus' next merge window). Integration testing is for the purpose of
detecting + fixing (or avoiding) problems due to interactions between
subsystems, or between infrastructure code to peripheral code.

Therefore I agree with David that linux-next is somewhat too special for
general consumption.

Before integration testing, we test subsystem developments in a more
targeted fashion in our myriad of subsystem development trees. (These
trees host special branches from which linux-next is created almost
daily in a more or less automated fashion.)

Of course if a distributor wanted to package linux-next, why not. The
nature of -next would call for several of such package releases per week
though.
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--= --== ---==
http://arcgraph.de/sr/


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-03-03 16:23    [W:0.053 / U:0.908 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site