On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 08:44:01PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > But it risks code drift like we had in 2.4 with older kernels > having more fixes than the newer kernel. And that way lies madness.
I believe it's going to work like this: * simple fixes are submitted to Linus and -stable, and are appropriately merged. * complex "correct" fixes too large for -stable are submitted to Linus, with a simplified version for -stable. When the next Linus kernel is released, anything in the previous -stable series is effectively discarded, and the next -stable series is produced from the new release point. Obviously, the -stable sucker can continue with his existing -stable series if he so wishes, but I would expect that any fixes in, eg, 2.6.11.x would not be propagated by the -stable sucker to 2.6.12.x. This may be a good thing - it encourages people to get the fixes into the Linus tree, thereby keeping the code drift to a minimum. Any drift would only exist for one of these -stable branches, which may only survive for maybe one Linus kernel release cycle. -- 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/
