On Nov 8, 2011, at 6:20 AM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> We have the staging tree because it's a widely acknowledged belief that
> kernel code in the tree tends to improve over time compared to code that's
> sitting out of the tree. Are you disputing that belief?
Kernel code in the kernel source tree
On Nov 8, 2011, at 5:22 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> We do even more than that, the perf ABI is fully backwards *and*
> forwards compatible: you can run older perf on newer ABIs and newer
> perf on older ABIs.
It's great to hear that! But in that case, there's an experiment we can't
really run,
On Nov 8, 2011, at 4:32 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> No ifs and when about it, these are the plain facts:
>
> - Better features, better ABIs: perf maintainers can enforce clean,
> functional and usable tooling support *before* committing to an
> ABI on the kernel side.
"We don't have to be
On Nov 7, 2011, at 5:19 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
> The kernel ecosystem does not have to be limited to linux.git. There could
> be a process to be a "kernel.org project" for projects that fit a certain set
> of criteria. These projects could all share the Linux kernel release cadence
>
