Personally I think the current process works reasonably well, though
as we should always try to improve it further...

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:

quoted text
> On Thu, 1 May 2008, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> - opens all the debates about running parallel branches, such as, would it be
>> better to /branch/ for 2.6.X-rc, and then keep going full steam on
>> the trunk?

I think you could branch at ~ rc3 (strictly critical fixes only from
this point). This way 'next' wouldn't be low-maintenance but the
release branch would be.

I.e., the merge window would open at ~ rc3. At 'final', the merge window
would probably be already closed :-)

Something like:
- 2.6.26-rc3: 2.6.27 merge window opens, 2.6.26 - fixes only
- 1 week later: no core changes for 2.6.27 except fixes (drivers only?)

2.6.26* would receive backports from 2.6.27 (cherry-picking? applying
on 2.6.26 and merging?).

The "no open regressions" rule would make sense certainly - unless in
a specific case agreed otherwise.

Perhaps if needed you could let other people do the final release
("stable" extension) and concentrate on the trunk.

quoted text
> If I'd have both a 'next' branch _and_ a full 2-week merge window, there's 
> no upside.

Shorter cycle is the big upside.

Perhaps we could start branching later at first - say at 2.6.26-rc5,
and see how does it work.
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa
--
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/