public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com>
To: Mauelshagen@sistina.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mge@sistina.com
Subject: Re: LVM 1.0 release decision
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 10:39:48 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3AFBF9B4.E05EADA7@mandrakesoft.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20010511162745.B18341@sistina.com>

"Heinz J. Mauelshagen" wrote:
> In order to avoid this difference we provide smaller patches more often now.
> We have started already with a subset of about 50 necessary patches.
> 
> Even though we get kind support from Alan Cox to get those QAed and integrated,
> the pure amount of patches will take at least a couple of weeks to make it in.

Are you sending them all in one batch (50 e-mails to Linus at once), or
trickling them to Linus a few at a time?  It might be faster to send him
a batch (though not necessarily 50), noting with each e-mail, after each
patch's description, that the particular patch depends patches C, F, and
H that have come before it.  That way Linus can apply 8 out of 10
patches, and then you synchronize with him and start the cycle over
again.


> In regard to this situation we'ld like to know about your oppinion on
> the following request:
> is it acceptable to release 1.0 soon *before* all patches to reach the 1.0 code
> status are in vanilla (presumed that we provide them with our release as we
> always did before)?

Subsystems are often maintained outside the Linus tree, with code
getting pushed (hopefully regularly) to Linus.  For such scenarios, it
should be no problem to release software before all of it passes Linus. 
You are the one who has to deal with user support after all :)   Just
make sure that all fixes and changes currently in the kernel are also in
your software release...

	Jeff


-- 
Jeff Garzik      | Game called on account of naked chick
Building 1024    |
MandrakeSoft     |

  parent reply	other threads:[~2001-05-11 14:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2001-05-11 16:27 LVM 1.0 release decision Heinz J. Mauelshagen
2001-05-11 14:32 ` Alan Cox
2001-05-11 15:11   ` Andrea Arcangeli
2001-05-11 20:12     ` David S. Miller
2001-05-12  1:24       ` Andrea Arcangeli
2001-05-12  1:29         ` David S. Miller
2001-05-12  2:54           ` Andrea Arcangeli
2001-05-12  5:19             ` David S. Miller
2001-05-12 13:39               ` Andrea Arcangeli
2001-05-13 17:36         ` David Woodhouse
2001-05-13 18:39           ` Alan Cox
2001-05-13 23:17             ` Chris Wedgwood
2001-05-13 19:25           ` Christoph Hellwig
2001-05-11 15:42   ` H. Peter Anvin
2001-05-11 17:02   ` Andreas Dilger
2001-05-16 15:03   ` Heinz J. Mauelshagen
2001-05-16 23:38     ` Alan Cox
2001-05-11 14:39 ` Jeff Garzik [this message]
2001-05-11 14:48   ` Mark Hahn

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=3AFBF9B4.E05EADA7@mandrakesoft.com \
    --to=jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com \
    --cc=Mauelshagen@sistina.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mge@sistina.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox