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

Two things may largely eliminate the need for parallel branches.

1. Do infrastructure changes and whole tree wide refactoring etc. in a
compatible manner with a brief but nonzero transition period.

2. Insert a second merge window right after the usual merge window for
changes which cannot be well done with a transition period.

(I probably missed a number of points why these two things are not
always feasible, because I am just a downstream person.)
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--- --=- =-=--
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/