On Wednesday 11 October 2006 1:01 am, Lorenzo Lutti wrote: > This "two branches" approach is good, but it > has a drawback: the bleeding-edge/experimental tree should be an extension > of the stable tree, i.e. it should include all the functionalities of the > stable tree; in this way, the developers can work on the experimental tree > without loosing functionalities.
Not entirely practical, given that "stable" ~= 2.6.10 == almost 2 yrs "old" (modulo various patches) while "expermental" == 2.6.18+ == pretty "current", and that numerous kernel APIs have changed in source-incompatible ways as they have been bugfixed and improved. Backporting may not be possible ... It's also worth noting that the mainstream kernel community does not look at the "current" kernel as "experimental" or "bleeding edge". Instead, it's viewed as two years of bugfixes and improvements over 2.6.10. There's not a chance in the world that 2.6.10 platform code would be merged to kernel.org, but DaVinci-specific patches against current kernels could be. That said, I think support for the DaVinci DSP isn't included in the GIT tree yet. Which probably means that "current" kernels aren't yet very practical for developing DaVinci based products, even if you disregard the testing and stability work that's yet to be done on the DaVinci-specific code (including MMC/SD, SPI, UART, etc). - Dave _______________________________________________ Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list [email protected] http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
