From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gerd Hoffmann Subject: Re: Xen dom0 Kernel Patches Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 08:59:19 +0200 Message-ID: <4A2770C7.2020605@redhat.com> References: <1244087028.7176.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1244087028.7176.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: echo@echoreply.us Cc: Xen-devel , Andrew Lyon , Keir Fraser List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 06/04/09 05:43, Tim Post wrote: > On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 22:31 +0100, Keir Fraser wrote: > >> Yes, it doesn't have to be all pushed upstream for it to be used. It's just >> a question of how big the out-of-upstream patchset is that Jeremy has to >> manage. And actually there's maintenance work even with the upstreamed >> patches, of course. But none of that directly matters for consumers of >> Jeremy's tree. > > No, of course it doesn't. The problem is, Jeremy's tree is very much a > moving target as he works to produce patches that upstream will accept. Well, that might be fixable without too much effort. Maybe jeremy could simply branch off a stable branch for 2.6.30 before rebasing to 2.6.31-rc1? Just to have something people can pull which is not based on some -rc bleeding edge kernel? That branch wouldn't get updates, except maybe for cherry-picked bugfixes, maybe also 2.6.30.x stable patches if they apply cleanly. Development would still happen in the xen-next + xen-master branches of course. cheers, Gerd