Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

[Andrew Morton]

Neil Brown <neilb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/