From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.10.15]:34426 "EHLO pat.uio.no" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751002AbYBLEqQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:46:16 -0500 Subject: Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-)) From: Trond Myklebust In-Reply-To: <20080211203146.3d28d1a0@laptopd505.fenrus.org> References: <20080212120208.f7168a91.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20080212042133.GA4625@kroah.com> <20080211203146.3d28d1a0@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:45:55 -0500 Message-Id: <1202791555.20739.6.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: Greg KH , Stephen Rothwell , LKML , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Linus On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 20:31 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > in my experience, the only chance you have is doing API changes as first in the set of changes, > and then hoping (making) all other trees use the new APIs. Any other order just turns into > an impossible mismash. It would be very nice to have a separate tree with _only_ API changes that could be frozen well before Linus' merge window opens. It should be a requirement that maintainers use this tree as a basis for testing API changes and even test that their own changesets were properly integrated with the changed APIs. As it is, we tend to get the order entirely wrong: API changes typically get merged _after_ the maintainer changes have been merged, and so no API changes are ever really integration tested. Cheers Trond