[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20060921.154415.116358287.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: davej@...hat.com
Cc: jeff@...zik.org, davidsen@....com, torvalds@...l.org,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.19 -mm merge plans
From: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 18:05:39 -0400
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 02:52:08PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>
> > I think the even/odd idea is great, personally. And if this
> > makes some people have to wait a little bit longer for their
> > favorite feature to get merged, that's tough. :-)
>
> My concern is that people will 'sit out' the even stage, and
> just accumulate stuff in a single tree they dump once when
> every odd release opens up.
At least they would be dumping on top of "mostly working".
I kind of like that. It breeds more confidence into the
tree having been working before the dump took place, thus
making the isolation of cause much easier.
> We already have some subsystems that do once-per-release merges,
> and then let fixes build up in their out-of-tree SCM for months
> until the next window. It won't necessarily get worse, but unless
> everyone is participating in the odd/even rules, we won't get
> the benefits that it would offer.
Having odd/even rules kind of adds legitimacy to the per-tree folks
doing the same. This avoids situations like "why is XXX being an
asshole with his tree, when there are other trees merging new
features this round?". Having buy-in from everyone is very useful
and gets folks in the correct mindset.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists