Re: tracking linux-2.6 upstream [was Re: Handling of trunk]
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 11:35:52AM +0100, maximilian attems wrote:
> > Debian is known for outdated kernels.
> > 2.6.8 got out with Sarge release. By then this kernel
> > was about a year old and wouldn't install on SATA boxes.
> > 2.6.18 is the Etch kernel, it was half a year old when
> > we released.
> > 2.6.19 wasn't the most stable release so the pick was
> > mostly good (tbm sorting the arm troubles with -mm
> > fedora patches).
>
> What do you want to say?
If you had read the previous mail and hadn't just left one small
snippet you would have noticed the introduction. The first part
of previous mail asses the current situation.
> > Currently d-i has been based for half a year on 2.6.22 and
> > doesn't install on many recent boxes like Dell Optiplex
> > 755 offered by hardware vendors or semi-current Intel
> > desktop boards DG33FB. When Debian fails on the first
> > try people usually try another distribution only very
> > few debootstrap back to Debian.
>
> This is a d-i problem. They want to handle that on the own.
No it is not only a d-i trouble linux-2.6 lands pretty late
in Testing right now.
> > It was said that SVN cannot cope with the git snapshot patches,
> > due to their size.
>
> Please show where this was mentioned.
You were moaning about the size of the archive. git easily can
handle big patches without having archive space grow really big.
Easy indication of a limit by using wrong tool.
You still haven't explained why latest upstream git tracking hinders
infrastructure work.
Reply to: