On Mon, 5 May 2008 21:16:12 +0300
"Pekka Enberg" <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote:
quoted text
> > 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...
 
On Mon, 5 May 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
quoted text
> You have stuff in your tree which isn't intended for 2.6.27??

Heh, no, but I did read somewhere that you're only supposed to put patches 
in 'next' that you consider to be good enough for Linus to pull.

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

On Mon, 5 May 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
quoted text
> 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.

Well, I only really have three kinds of patches: (1) testing, (2) 
for-linus asap (fixes in the middle of a release cycle) and (3) for-linus 
when the merge window opens. Up until now, I've put (1) in for-mm and 
after enough exposure (and no bug reports) they graduate into (2) or (3).

So the problem here is where I put the patches in category (1)? If 
they can go into for-next, then for-mm can disappear. Stephen?

		Pekka
--
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/