Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

[Jeff Garzik]

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> In fact, if somebody maintained that kind of tree, especially in BK, it 
> would be trivial for me to just pull from it every once in a while (like 
> ever _day_ if necessary). But for that to work, then that tree would have 
> to be about so _obviously_ not wild patches that it's a no-brainer.
>
> So what's the problem with this approach? It would seem to make everybody
> happy: it would reduce my load, it would give people the alternate "2.6.x
> base kernel plus fixes only" parallell track, and it would _not_ have the 
> testability issue (because I think a lot of people would be happy to test 
> that tree, and if it was always based on the last 2.6.x release, there 
> would be no issues.

The only problem I see with this -- and its a minor problem -- is that 
some patches that belong in the 2.6.X.Y tree go straight to you/Andrew, 
rather than to $sucker.

It's perfectly workable from a BK standpoint to do

	-> linux-2.6 commit
	-> cpcset into linux-2.6.X.Y [see Documentation/BK-usage/cpcset]
	-> pull from linux-2.6.X.Y into linux-2.6 [dups cset, but no
	   real code change]

but that causes dups in the BK changelog and history.  Not a big deal, 
though, just a minor technical nit.

	Jeff


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/