Clearly I picked a bad week to go on vacation..
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 10:18:41 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: [...] > > Alan, I think your problem is that you really think that the tree _I_ want > is what _you_ want. > > I look at this from a _layering_ standpoint. Not from a "stable tree" > standpoint at all. > > We're always had the "wild" kernels, and 90% of the time the point of the > "wild" kernels has been to let people test out the experimental stuff, > that's not always ready for merging. Like it or not, I've considered even > the -ac kernel historically very much a "wild" thing, not a "bugfixes" > thing. > > What I'd like to set up is the reverse. The same way the "wild" kernels > tend to layer on top of my standard kernel, I'd like to have a lower > level, the "anti-wild" kernel. Something that is comprised of patches > that _everybody_ can agree on, and that doesn't get anything else. AT ALL. > That is what I'm trying to do w/ my tree; obvious fixes only. Most of the patches I've included in 2.6.10-asX have been stupid build fixes, and basic C problems (ie, deref'ing a pointer before it's been assigned). The main time I make exceptions for that is for security fixes. > And that means that such a kernel would not get all patches that you'd > want. That's fine. That was never the aim of it. The _only_ point of > this kernel would be to have a baseline that nobody can disagree with. > > In other words, it's not a "let's fix all serious bugs we can fix", but > a "this is the least common denominator that is basically acceptable to > everybody, regardless of what their objectives are". > > So if you want to fix a security issue, and the fix is too big or > invasive or ugly for the "least common denominator" thing, then it > simply does not _go_ into that kernel. At that point, it goes into an > -ac kernel, or into my kernel, or into a vendor kernel. See? > This is understandable. I have included security fixes in -as that were non-trivial; if a 2.6.x.y tree is not willing to include them, then I guess it won't be what I was hoping. I had emailed Chris before going on vacation, offering to work with him on 2.6.x.y (which would allow me to drop -as), but if security fixes aren't a higher priority thing (even in the face of invasive/ugly changes), then I guess there's still a need for -as/-ac. - 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/
