[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080513103055.d133f60a.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 10:30:55 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-next@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for May 12
Hi Randy,
On Mon, 12 May 2008 08:22:05 -0700 Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 15:04:18 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> > News: I am now providing patches relative to the latest tag in Linus'
> > tree. I propose to stop providing complete tar balls as they are so
> > large and people will have recent versions of Linus's tree anyway (I
> > assume). The patches will be named "patch-<upstream tag>-<next tag>".
>
> Oh well. For the record, I don't mind using patches instead of
> complete tarballs, but I would prefer that the patches be relative
> to something like a daily -git snapshot so that using git is not
> required at all.
They will be relative to a tag that Linus adds to his tree and those
tagged trees are always available as tar balls. i.e. yesterdays patches
were relative to 2.6.26-rc1, today's (and until rc3 comes out) will be
relative to 2.6.26-rc2. Or I could do them against the daily -git
snapshots (or both). Either way it would cut down on the amount of stuff
I am distributing. Currently there is already about 6G of linux-next
tarballs.
I certainly don't want to make it harder for those who are doing such
good job of testing. Does that make it clearer?
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@...b.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists