Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

Greg KH
2005-03-03T18:13:33Z

On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 01:04:49PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >In fact, if somebody maintained that kind of tree, especially in BK, it
> >would be trivial for me to just pull from it every once in a while (like
> >ever _day_ if necessary). But for that to work, then that tree would have
> >to be about so _obviously_ not wild patches that it's a no-brainer.
> >
> >So what's the problem with this approach? It would seem to make everybody
> >happy: it would reduce my load, it would give people the alternate "2.6.x
> >base kernel plus fixes only" parallell track, and it would _not_ have the
> >testability issue (because I think a lot of people would be happy to test
> >that tree, and if it was always based on the last 2.6.x release, there
> >would be no issues.
>
> The only problem I see with this -- and its a minor problem -- is that
> some patches that belong in the 2.6.X.Y tree go straight to you/Andrew,
> rather than to $sucker.
>
> It's perfectly workable from a BK standpoint to do
>
> -> linux-2.6 commit
> -> cpcset into linux-2.6.X.Y [see Documentation/BK-usage/cpcset]
> -> pull from linux-2.6.X.Y into linux-2.6 [dups cset, but no
> real code change]

That's fine with me to do. As long as someone points out to $sucker
that such a patch should go into 2.6.x.y.

thanks,

greg k-h