Hi Russell, On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:14:05 +0000 Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>= wrote:ct Correct. one t. This is exactly what I suggested (or meant to) *except* that I want it to only apply to the stable branch. I intend that the stable branch of linux-next will never be rebased and so is suitable for others to base their trees off. The master branch will be continually rebased as the subsystem trees change over time. Originally, I assumed the stable branch would be for our "usual" API changes, but it appears we are not having any more of those. :-) However, I see an argument for attempting to stabilise possible conflicting changes get Linus' review/ack and add them to the stable branch. Linus suggested that such changes should go into an independent tree that everyone could pull into their trees with the full confidence that that tree would be merged into Linus' tree when the merge window opens. I am suggesting that that tree be the stable branch of linux-next. I know I haven't thought through all the consequences of this, so discussion is encouaged. --=20 Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Andi Kleen | [PATCH x86] [0/16] Various i386/x86-64 changes |
| Vladislav Bolkhovitin | Re: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
| Pavel Roskin | ndiswrapper and GPL-only symbols redux |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Natalie Protasevich | [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Arjan van de Ven | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
