Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269948AbUJSWFU (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:05:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269557AbUJSVsB (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:48:01 -0400 Received: from rproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.170.206]:2239 "EHLO mproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268255AbUJSVdl (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:33:41 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=filFANK35VZCqAIOu4feR1P/9k7KNLsxo283DPX7IBj3RBExCofD+yEHitFI7hmdZBHgu5oOQNr6/I9Uu+/SUgHUVL5HNvgxQpOVsa7nA5kSouTdkDH4t01RZglmW5fRi6uEGR+h4BjWEBUnS6ZU2aPQuJwZ5Fm3FMP5BgdPtIU Message-ID: <4d8e3fd304101914332979f86a@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 23:33:40 +0200 From: Paolo Ciarrocchi Reply-To: Paolo Ciarrocchi To: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: BK kernel workflow Cc: Linux Kernel , Larry McVoy , torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org In-Reply-To: <41753B99.5090003@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <41752E53.8060103@pobox.com> <20041019153126.GG18939@work.bitmover.com> <41753B99.5090003@pobox.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1381 Lines: 35 On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:06:49 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Although tangential to the problem, I thought LKML and BitMover (and > maybe Andrew or Linus as well) might be interested in a general > description of my workflow. > > For net drivers in the Linux kernel, there exists two patch queues, > net-drivers-2.6 and netdev-2.6 (and corresponding 2.4 versions). > net-drivers-2.6 could be described as the "upstream immediately" or "for > Linus" queue, and netdev-2.6 could be described as the "testing" queue. So you have two bk trees, - patches good for mainstream - patches good for -mm tree It would be cool if all the maintainers could adopt your working method, Andrew is already automatically pulling from a bunch of trees, why not having Linusdoing the same too? Something like: linux-2.6.XX is released - Linus pull from all the "patches good for mainstream" bk trees and from the equivalent Andrew tree (that doesn't exist at the moment) - Linus release the first -pre release - Linus gets other patches according to the "old" method - Linus releases the -pre/-rc Is it just a stupid idea ? -- Paolo - 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/