In fact, if somebody maintained that kind of tree, especially in BK, it would be trivial for me to just pull from it every once in a while (like ever _day_ if necessary). But for that to work, then that tree would have to be about so _obviously_ not wild patches that it's a no-brainer.
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.
The only problem I see with this -- and its a minor problem -- is that some patches that belong in the 2.6.X.Y tree go straight to you/Andrew, rather than to $sucker.
It's perfectly workable from a BK standpoint to do
-> linux-2.6 commit
-> cpcset into linux-2.6.X.Y [see Documentation/BK-usage/cpcset]
-> pull from linux-2.6.X.Y into linux-2.6 [dups cset, but no
real code change]but that causes dups in the BK changelog and history. Not a big deal, though, just a minor technical nit.
Jeff
- 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/
