Hi Linus,

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:01:14 -0800 (PST) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-fou=
ndation.org> wrote:
quoted text
>
> I absolutely have no problem with having a "this is the infrastrcture=20
> changes that will go into the next release". In fact, I can even=20
> *maintain* such a branch.=20
>=20
> I've not wanted to open up a second branch for "this is for next release"=
,=20
quoted text
> because quite frankly, one of the other problems we have is that people=20
> already spend way too much time on the next release compared to just=20
> looking at regressions in the current one. But especially if we're talkin=
g=20
quoted text
> about _purely_ API changes etc infrastructure, I could certainly do a=20
> "next" branch.=20

So, will you open such a branch?  If so, what would be the mechanics of
having patches applied to it?  I assume people would have to suggest such
changes explicitly and have them reviewed (hopefully more thoroughly than
usual) in that light.  I guess one place these "infrastructure" changes
may be noticed would be when subsystem maintainers stray outside their
subsystem in what they submit to the linux-next tree (or break it).

Then I assume most people would start working on a merge of this "next"
branch and your "master" branch, right?  Consequently, each linux-next
would also be based on that merge.

I suppose I am stating the obvious (or asking the dumb questions), but I
always find it easier to have explicit answers to these sorts of things.

--=20
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au