Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262060AbUFRVYZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:24:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262837AbUFRVU1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:20:27 -0400 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:64408 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264524AbUFRVSM (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:18:12 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 23:17:57 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Andrew Morton Cc: Rik van Riel , dev@opensound.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Stop the Linux kernel madness Message-ID: <20040618211757.GD7404@suse.de> References: <20040618082708.GD12881@suse.de> <20040618135136.45581da7.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040618135136.45581da7.akpm@osdl.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1835 Lines: 43 On Fri, Jun 18 2004, Andrew Morton wrote: > Rik van Riel wrote: > > > > Maintaining a patch for one version of the distribution, in > > order to get a feature to customers sooner, is perfectly > > doable and may make economic sense. > > > > Maintaining an out-of-tree patch forever because you didn't > > get around to merging it into the upstream kernel doesn't. > > Problem is, what happens if vendor X ships a feature and that feature is > deemed unacceptable for the kernel.org kernel? Very good question, as these features/patches are often the ones that are ugliest and the hardest to maintain. Or the ones that make you slightly source incompatible with mainline, which is always ugly. > There are examples of this and as I've earlier indicated, I'd be OK with > merging some fairly stinky things after 2.7 forks off, as a service to the > major kernel.org customers and as a general lets-keep-things-in-sync > exercise. Within reason (I trust your taste and judgement completely), I fully support that and think this is key to maintaing closer proximity between mainline and vendor kernels. There are _always_ going to be uglies (don't ask me why)... > But we then need to do it all again in 2.8.x. It's hard to see how to fix > this apart from either merging everything into the main tree or dropping > things from vendor trees. Or waiting for someone to come up with an > acceptable form of whatever it is the patch does. Wish I had an answer for that. Things can and do get dropped from vendor trees, doesn't cover all cases naturally. -- Jens Axboe - 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/