[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Linux 2.6.0

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 15:50:26 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 08:32:01PM +0100, Michael Meskes wrote:
>> > That bit sounds like worthwile.. but I'd still need a more general description
>> > of what the patches do. I'm concerned about incompatibilities with other
>> Actually I see the problem that this is not a single patch but quite a
>> lot of patches merged. 
> 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

That's how it's been for 2.5 and 2.6 so far; things may change once Andrew
becomes the 2.6 maintainer.

> If someone splits the part we're interested in, it could be added to my
> package, but then I'd see no reason why it couldn't be added to
> Herbert's kernel-patch-debian-2.6.0 (which my package uses) or even
> merged in upstream.

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.

Reply to: