On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 14:32 -0700, Woodruff, Robert J wrote: > Steve wrote > > >The model we should adopt IMO is: linus's git tree + some set of > patches > >that compose the latest open fabrics kernel code. The patches are all > >in-process for going into linus's tree at some point. And the > >maintainer of that technology, (eg sean for ucma) will keep that patch > >set up to date for folks to pull until it gets pulled into an upstream > >git tree (like linus's or roland's). With git and stg this is pretty > >easy IMO. > > >So the kernel developers all adopt git and maintain their latest > changes > >that are always on top of linus's git tree, or roland's infiniband git > >tree. And we document where each component's patches or git tree is > >located. Perhaps on the openib wiki. > > Perhaps if we used an MM tree model, the initial MM tree would be > cloned from Linus's git tree or Rolands tree that is queued for > Linus, then people that want to test their new code with other > more experimental code would sumbit a patch for the MM tree. > When a component is thought to be stable enough to go up stream, > a patch is then submitted to Roland for his git tree. > > If there are changes made to Rolands tree for non-experimental > components, the MM tree maintainer would periodically sink > the MM tree to the mainline (Roland's) tree. > > Would something like this work ? >
Yes, that seems like it would work. We need an Andrew Morton. ;-) Seriously, I think part of the issue here is getting the warm body that will do that work... Steve. _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
