linux-kernel - Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-))

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20080221015511.1b54d4d3.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:	Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:55:11 +1100
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream  :-))

Hi Linus,

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:01:14 -0800 (PST) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> I absolutely have no problem with having a "this is the infrastrcture 
> changes that will go into the next release". In fact, I can even 
> *maintain* such a branch. 
> 
> I've not wanted to open up a second branch for "this is for next release", 
> because quite frankly, one of the other problems we have is that people 
> already spend way too much time on the next release compared to just 
> looking at regressions in the current one. But especially if we're talking 
> about _purely_ API changes etc infrastructure, I could certainly do a 
> "next" branch. 

So, will you open such a branch?  If so, what would be the mechanics of
having patches applied to it?  I assume people would have to suggest such
changes explicitly and have them reviewed (hopefully more thoroughly than
usual) in that light.  I guess one place these "infrastructure" changes
may be noticed would be when subsystem maintainers stray outside their
subsystem in what they submit to the linux-next tree (or break it).

Then I assume most people would start working on a merge of this "next"
branch and your "master" branch, right?  Consequently, each linux-next
would also be based on that merge.

I suppose I am stating the obvious (or asking the dumb questions), but I
always find it easier to have explicit answers to these sorts of things.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@...b.auug.org.au

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped