Re: Linux 2.6.0
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 08:55:05PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > Sort of like a fork, then.. that's a showstopper. I can't apply a patch that
> > contains a lot of merged patches without analising what each of them does.
> It is; it's similar to the old 2.4 -ac trees that Alan Cox used to
> maintain. Andrew's tree is a testing ground for various experimental
> 2.6 patches; if they prove stable, they get merged into Linus' 2.6 tree.
> Of course, I find the -mm tree to be more usable in general, because
> bugfixes are integrated into it quicker than w/ Linus' tree. OTOH, bugs
> tend to pop up, but Andrew is pretty good about dropping buggy patches
Oh, I see..
> The important patches will be merged upstream. I would recommend
> providing the -mm tree only if you're willing to keep up w/ the pace that
> he does releases; they tend to be made a lot quicker than Linus releases.
Then I guess you should take this up with Herbert. If he considers that
patchset good enough for being in kernel-patch-debian, it'll eventualy be
merged into my package (which build-depends on it).
"[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he
gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work."
-- J.R.R.T., Ainulindale (Silmarillion)