On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 09:04:43AM -0800, Eric Gaumer wrote: > Greg KH wrote: > >On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 08:23:39AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > >>So what's the problem with this approach? It would seem to make everybody > >>happy: it would reduce my load, it would give people the alternate "2.6.x > >>base kernel plus fixes only" parallell track, and it would _not_ have the > >>testability issue (because I think a lot of people would be happy to test > >>that tree, and if it was always based on the last 2.6.x release, there > >>would be no issues. > >> > >>Anybody? > > > > > >Well, I'm one person who has said that this would be a very tough > >problem to solve. And hey, I like tough problems, so I'll volunteer to > >start this. If I burn out, I'll take the responsibility of finding > >someone else to take it over. > > > >I really like the rules you've outlined, that makes it almost possible > >to achieve sanity. > > > > How does what Linus outlined differ from splitting to 2.7?
- Each 2.6.x.y series would be abandanded after the next 2.6.x release came out. - There would be no big development fork. Those are two ways this differs. > All that aside... why not make the "sucker tree" a breeding ground for new > kernel hackers. Have you looked into the kernel-janitor project? That's the best "breeding" ground around for people who want to learn the kernel development process. I highly recommend that. I don't think this "stable/bugfix" release series would be a good place for new hackers, as most first bugfixes are of the janitorial type, which would not be accepted into such a release tree. thanks, greg k-h - 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/
