>>>>> "Greg" == Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Greg> On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 02:52:21AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> Users have been clamoring for a stable release branch in any case, >> as you see from comments about Alan's -ac and an LKML user's -as >> kernels. Greg> Sure they've been asking for it, but I think they really don't Greg> know what it entails. Look at all of the "non-stable" type Greg> patches in the -ac and as tree. There's a lot of stuff in Greg> there. It's a slippery slope down when trying to say, "I'm only Greg> going to accept bug fixes." Greg> Bug fixes for what? Kernel api changes that fix bugs? That's Greg> pretty big. Some driver fixes, but not others? Driver fixes Greg> that are in the middle of bigger, subsystem reworks as a series Greg> of patches? All of this currently happens today in the main Greg> tree in a semi-cohesive manner. To try to split it out is a Greg> very difficult task. Greg> So, while I like the _idea_ of the 2.6.x.y type releases, having Greg> those releases contain anything but a handful of patches will Greg> quickly get quite messy. Greg, Wouldn't this actually happen automatically simply by Linus switching to being a lot more picky about whats accepted into an even release. I agree that if it becomes too formal it could probably turn into an unmaintainable mess. However, by simply making it a golden rule, then developers can just continue pushing their patches and the people above can just shift things to -mm that aren't deemed suitable for the even release. I think this would work quite well. Cheers, Jes - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
