Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 17:48:33 -0800
From: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
To: "Marcos D. Marado Torres" <marado@student.dei.uc.pt>
cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       lse-tech <lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: 2.6.1-rc1-mjb1
Message-ID: <48590000.1073180912@[10.10.2.4]>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0401040130450.2752@student.dei.uc.pt>
References: <4690000.1073090546@[10.10.2.4]> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0401040130450.2752@student.dei.uc.pt>
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
Content-Length: 1299
Lines: 31

>> The patchset contains ... oh hell, anything I feel like putting in it.
>> It's meant to be pretty stable - performance should be better than mainline,
>> particularly on larger machines.
>> 
>> I'd be very interested in feedback from anyone willing to test on any
>> platform, however large or small.
>> 
>> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/mbligh/2.6.1-rc1/patch-2.6.1-rc1-mjb1.bz2
> 
> Hi there...
> 
> Have you thought in doing a patch-2.6.1-rc1-mm1-mjb1 and continuing to make a
> patchset to the -mm sources?

I considered it once, for about 30s - the answer was no. For one, Andrew 
moves way too fast for me to keep up with. For another, he has different 
objectives - he basically runs a testing tree, whereas I want to go for
something more stable, with cherry picked enhancements (mostly performance
and serviceability stuff).

There's a fair amount of common code between the two trees, which I try
to keep pretty much in sync between the two - I pick up changes he makes
from his latest trees, and send him changes I make.

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/