G'day Am 31.03.2012 15:01, schrieb Jonathan Nieder: > Does Debian prefer "1 patch per upstream" commit or have one big patch >> per driver/file? > I believe the kernel team is happiest if there's a public git tree > based against 3.2, gregkh's 3.2.y, or some similar release like > gregkh's 3.0.y to pull patches from. (Compare aufs.) I could do that in some manner, see later. But I'm not fully sure about your answer, if I understood you correctly this means cherry-picking every single related patch from 3.4-rcX to 3.2.(12) let's say from gregkh. - Right?
I'll see if I can clean up my DYI-patched vanilla 3.4 tree cleaned up to some stage it could be of help for Debian's kernel. >> ata_pIIx [...] > Has the topic been raised on the linux-ide@ list? I haven't closely followed the discussion also Suse has another patch in their tree. Both Suse and Canonical variants have minor disadvantages like slowed down detection at boot. I couldn't catch up on this discussion but I believe there have been discussion between MS, Canonical, Suse and upstream people how to get a proper upstream solution. But that is certainly not part of a mainline 3.4. I don't think I have the expertise to judge the quality of such an extra patch. - I could only tell you whether it works or if it breaks here ;-) Thanks for your answer. - Mathieu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f776d42.2030...@gmail.com
