On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 12:00:39PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 08:43:53AM -0800, 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. > > Ooh, a sucker!
Two of us even :) > Seriously, I think Linus's plan makes a lot of sense, as a scalable > way of maintaining a 2.6.x.y release strategy. I agree, and if Chris and I share the load, it might even make it a bit more robust in that we can cover for each other when one is traveling, etc. > The other thing which would probably be useful to maintain would be a > list of "known regressions" yet to be fixed in 2.6.x.y, and to address > the somewhat disturbing assertions that sometimes regressions "light > up bugzilla" at distro's like Fedora, but don't get reflected back up > to LKML. Maybe we could recruit some other sucker to maintain such a > list? That would be great, and any help from the distro bug-wranglers would be appreciated. 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/
