On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 02:35:29PM -0500, Sean wrote: > On Thu, March 3, 2005 12:53 pm, Linus Torvalds said: > > On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Jens Axboe wrote: > >> > >> Why should there be one? One of the things I like about this concept is > >> that it's just a moving tree. There could be daily snapshots like the > >> -bkX "releases" of Linus's tree, if there are changes from the day > >> before. It means (hopefully) that no one will "wait for x.y.z.2 because > >> that is really stable". > > > > Exactly. Th ewhole point of this tree is that there shouldn't be anything > > questionable in it. All the patches are independent, and they are all > > trivial and small. > > > > Which is not to say there couldn't be regressions even from trivial and > > small patches, and yes, there will be an outcry when there is, but we're > > talking minimizing the risk, not making it impossible. > > > > Wait a second though, this tree will be branched from the development > mainline. So it will contain many patches that entered with less > testing.
Less testing than what? Remember, we don't have a "test suite" for the kernel, no matter how much propaganda osdl likes to emit :) > What will be the policy for dealing with regressions relative > to the previous $sucker release caused by huge patches that entered via > the development tree? Is reverting them prohibited because of the patch > size? We'll deal with them as they come, on a case-by-case basis. Acceptable? 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/
