Re: Linux 2.6.11.1

Gene Heskett
2005-03-05T21:50:08Z

On Saturday 05 March 2005 16:17, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>On Sat, 5 Mar 2005, Russell King wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 09:40:59AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> > I love BK, but what BK does well is merging and maintaining
>> > trees full of good stuff. What BK sucks at is experimental stuff
>> > where you don't know whether something should be eventually used
>> > or not.
>>
>> Wait a minute - why would stuff going into 2.6.x.y be
>> "experimental" stuff? Wasn't stability the whole point of this
>> tree?
>
>The point being that _before_ a patch gets accepted, it's in that
> "limbo" state, waiting for people to veto it or say "yes".
>
>That limbo state is not well done with BK.
>
> Linus

What he said! Perfectly good patches, which fix real problems would
appear to be sitting in testing/broken_out till bit rot or ???.

If you want a testers testimony, I'm running the bk-ieee1394.patch,
and all I can say at this point is that it Just Works(TM). I have
NDI how it got a yesterdays Mar 4) date in the directory listing
there though, I've had it a bit longer than that by 2-3 days as my
copy shows a Mar 1 date. I first got it via svn fetch at
linux-ieee1394.org or some such in January.

Fixes for real problems that fix real problems should somehow get a
faster track into final. The current firewire in the kernel as of
2.6.11 is still badly borked.

If that diff in the dates means I should update and retest, please
advise.

--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
99.34% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com attorneys please note, additions to this message
by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2005 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.