From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Randy Dunlap Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for May 12 Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 18:30:18 -0700 Message-ID: <4828EF2A.1090302@oracle.com> References: <20080512150418.603e29cf.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20080512082205.8678bbaf.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <20080513103055.d133f60a.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from rgminet01.oracle.com ([148.87.113.118]:36941 "EHLO rgminet01.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756439AbYEMBbI (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 May 2008 21:31:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080513103055.d133f60a.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Randy, > > On Mon, 12 May 2008 08:22:05 -0700 Randy Dunlap wrote: >> On Mon, 12 May 2008 15:04:18 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> >>> News: I am now providing patches relative to the latest tag in Linus' >>> tree. I propose to stop providing complete tar balls as they are so >>> large and people will have recent versions of Linus's tree anyway (I >>> assume). The patches will be named "patch--". >> Oh well. For the record, I don't mind using patches instead of >> complete tarballs, but I would prefer that the patches be relative >> to something like a daily -git snapshot so that using git is not >> required at all. > > They will be relative to a tag that Linus adds to his tree and those > tagged trees are always available as tar balls. i.e. yesterdays patches > were relative to 2.6.26-rc1, today's (and until rc3 comes out) will be > relative to 2.6.26-rc2. Or I could do them against the daily -git > snapshots (or both). Either way it would cut down on the amount of stuff > I am distributing. Currently there is already about 6G of linux-next > tarballs. That sounds fine. Relative to -rc's is good IMO (and for my scripts). > I certainly don't want to make it harder for those who are doing such > good job of testing. Does that make it clearer? Yes. Thanks. -- ~Randy