Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:27:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:27:36 -0500 Received: from franka.aracnet.com ([216.99.193.44]:2745 "EHLO franka.aracnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:27:34 -0500 Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:38:24 -0800 From: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Jeff Garzik cc: Robert Love , Martin Mares , Alan Cox , Stephan von Krawczynski , Pavel Machek , szepe@pinerecords.com, arjanv@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Ptrace hole / Linux 2.2.25 Message-ID: <29100000.1048459104@[10.10.2.4]> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1859 Lines: 42 > I see a lot of new Red Hat work getting discussed, landing in the 2.5 > tree, and then getting backported as a value-add 2.4 feature for an RH > kernel. Other stuff is "hack it into stability, but it's ugly and should > not go to Marcelo." > > IMNSHO this perception is more a not-looking-hard-enough issue rather > than reality. Well ... or we had different meanings ;-) yes, lots of stuff is in 2.5 but I was meaning 2.4. If there's stuff that's in both RH and UL kernels, and it's stable enough for them both to ship as their product, it sounds mergeable to me. > I have no idea about UnitedLinux kernel, but for RHAS I wager there is > next to _nil_ patches you would actually want to submit to Marcelo, for > three main reasons: it's a 2.5 backport, or, it's a 2.4.2X backport, or, > its an ugly-hack-for-stability that should not be in a mainline kernel > without cleaning anyway. I don't see what's wrong with putting 2.5 backports into 2.4 once they're stable. And I'd rather have an ugly-hack-for-stability than an unstable kernel ... 2.5 is the place for cleanliness ... 2.4 is a dead end that just needs to work. > Can you actually quantify this divergance? > > From actually _looking_ at RHAS for submittable patches, it seems to me > like mostly 2.5-backport patches in 2.4, or, bandaid-until-2.5 fixes that > don't belong in mainline. Right ... I think we're agreeing about what's the difference. Just disagreeing about what should be in mainline 2.4. If most others think it shouldn't go either, than I guess we need a separate tree for a 2.4 that works, not a 2.4 that's pretty ... M. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/