From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gerd Hoffmann Subject: Re: RE: New Release Process Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:56:18 +0100 Message-ID: <43D9FC52.2070507@suse.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Ian Pratt Cc: xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Hi, > SuSE have said they are actually going to base their release off 2.6.16, > even though we're still likely to be on 2.6.16-rcX by their freeze date. > One thing we could do to help them is to break with tradition and to > check the 2.6.16-rcX into the tree rather than the most recent stable > release, 2.6.15. This would help get 2.6.16 stabilized quicker, which > would certainly help them. 2.6.16 is already at rc1, which means that > many of the 'rough edges' should have been found, so I doubt we'll be > hurting ourselves too much. This is -unstable, after all. Question: Which tree(s) are run through the XenRT test suite? Is this only xen-unstable.hg? If so, then merging 2.6.16-rc1 into unstable would be very helpful. Not only for us, but also to make it stable for the mainline merge. If the linux-2.6-xen.hg and ext/linux-2.6-merge.hg trees are regression-tested as well it would be less important. But would probably still give us more people testing the code on different hardware ... cheers, Gerd -- Gerd 'just married' Hoffmann I'm the hacker formerly known as Gerd Knorr. http://www.suse.de/~kraxel/just-married.jpeg