Re: Slow DOWN, please!!!

[Jacek Luczak <difrost.kernel@gmail.com>]

Krzysztof Halasa pisze:
> Personally I think the current process works reasonably well, though
> as we should always try to improve it further...
> 
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:
> 
>> On Thu, 1 May 2008, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>> - opens all the debates about running parallel branches, such as, would it be
>>> better to /branch/ for 2.6.X-rc, and then keep going full steam on
>>> the trunk?
> 
> I think you could branch at ~ rc3 (strictly critical fixes only from
> this point). This way 'next' wouldn't be low-maintenance but the
> release branch would be.
> 
> I.e., the merge window would open at ~ rc3. At 'final', the merge window
> would probably be already closed :-)
> 
> Something like:
> - 2.6.26-rc3: 2.6.27 merge window opens, 2.6.26 - fixes only
> - 1 week later: no core changes for 2.6.27 except fixes (drivers only?)

Yep, that sounds pretty interesting. But It would be better to start something
like ,,slow merge window'' (explained below) around -rc4 where things really
slow down (or used to).

The idea of ,,slow merge window'' would look like:
	- merge only *obvious* (long awaiting) changes;
	- merge stuff (fixes) which comes to -rc releases;
	- merge non-core changes from -mm;

After releasing stable kernel the old style merge window opens.

> 2.6.26* would receive backports from 2.6.27 (cherry-picking? applying
> on 2.6.26 and merging?).
> The "no open regressions" rule would make sense certainly - unless in
> a specific case agreed otherwise.
> 
> Perhaps if needed you could let other people do the final release
> ("stable" extension) and concentrate on the trunk.
> 
>> If I'd have both a 'next' branch _and_ a full 2-week merge window, there's 
>> no upside.
> 
> Shorter cycle is the big upside.
> 
> Perhaps we could start branching later at first - say at 2.6.26-rc5,
> and see how does it work.

-Jacek