Andrew Morton wrote:
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Jeff Garzik wrote:
The more I think about it, the less motivated I am to push these changes into
2.6.16 at the last minute. Comments?
Absolutely. Considering what happened last time, I wouldn't pull from you
even if you pushed.
otoh, it's likely that SLES10 and RH-whatever will end up shipping with
those patches as a backport, so we might as well merge it for them?
I think. Jeff, what does your vendor hat tell you?
Well, for RHEL, we require almost everything to be upstream before we'll
ship it. For Fedora Core, that upstream requirement becomes even more
strict. However, the definition of "upstream" has fuzzied a bit, such
that if code is queued for upstream, we're probably OK with it.
So, I wouldn't worry overmuch about squeezing every last bit (pun
intended) into an official kernel.org release. The timing of distro vs.
kernel.org releases is disconnected enough that I think we would wind up
sacrificing kernel.org release quality by pushing bits in at the last
minute.
Plus, after the last e1000 debacle, I'm just plain nervous, and would
like to see this e1000 driver get testing in -mm/etc.
I'll push it into netdev-2.6.git#upstream (and into meta-branch #ALL),
which means it is queued for 2.6.17 [2.6.16-git1, really]. Once that
happens, at Red Hat we'll view it as upstream-queued, and OK it for the
vendor releases.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
