On Mon, 5 May 2008 21:16:12 +0300
"Pekka Enberg" <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote:

quoted text
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 1:12 AM, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >  Guys, could you please prepare a tree for Stephen and send the details
> >  over to him?  Please Cc me also.
> >
> >  Once this has happened, there should be no need to run a separate for-mm
> >  branch.  I'll just switch over to using whatever branch linux-next is
> >  using.
> 
> I was looking at preparing a for-next branch for the SLAB tree but I'm
> not sure I understand the above. For something like the slab
> allocator, you want as much exposure as possible before asking Linus
> to pull so I would like to continue to (ab)use -mm for testing as
> well. But that doesn't seem to fit the linux-next rules at all...

You have stuff in your tree which isn't intended for 2.6.27??

quoted text
> So what to do here? I don't have a problem with maintaining separate
> branches for mm and next where the latter is not going to get much
> action until very late in the release cycle when I'm preparing for the
> next merge window.

I don't mind, really - just do what you think is best for your subsystem
and then tell me and Stephen about it.  We'll only notice if you break
stuff ;)

So I'd suggest that you have a #for-next which contains material for 2.6.26
and 2.6.27 and a #for-mm which contains material for 2.6.28+.

Only problem is, I'd need to generate the #for-next -> #for-mm diff, and
that particular git operation has been troublesome in the past.

otoh, I think that staging for-2.6.26 and for-2.6.27 material in -mm really
is reaching far enough into the future, and I'd question the value of
staging for-2.6.28+ material as well.  I mean, that's half a year away.
--
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/