On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 11:24:58AM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 10:17 +0000, Russell King wrote: > > What about the case (as highlighted in previous discussions) that the > > stable tree needs a simple "dirty" fix, whereas mainline takes the > > complex "clean" fix? > > that's the exception I talked about a bit later in my mail. It should be > rare and very deliberate. And in fact once the mainline change ripples > out into maturity I rather replace the -stable one with that later on, > even if it's a bit more invasive.
Is that really necessary with a stable tree which may only be around for about 2 months before the next stable tree is forked (which would have the mature mainline fix in) ? There is another point here though, which I think is much more important. Remember that the original issue which caused the -stable tree to be created was a concern over the testing that Linus' kernels were getting. Also, realise that by creating a -stable tree, we haven't increased the number of testers which Linus' kernels are seeing. Given that, how can we decide that a complex fix has matured enough in Linus' kernel to warrant replacing a (proven) fix which users are perfectly happy with in the corresponding -stable tree? I thought the -stable tree is targeted towards stability, not towards "lets replace this change with some other because we as developers think it's better". -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core - 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/
