On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 01:04:49PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Linus Torvalds wrote: > >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]
That's fine with me to do. As long as someone points out to $sucker that such a patch should go into 2.6.x.y. 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/
