Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 09:06:21 -0800
From: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>,
       chrisw@osdl.org, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>,
       "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, akpm@osdl.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering
Message-ID: <20050303170621.GA11268@kroah.com>
References: <20050302200214.3e4f0015.davem@davemloft.net> <42268F93.6060504@pobox.com> <4226969E.5020101@pobox.com> <20050302205826.523b9144.davem@davemloft.net> <4226C235.1070609@pobox.com> <20050303080459.GA29235@kroah.com> <4226CA7E.4090905@pobox.com> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0503030750420.25732@ppc970.osdl.org> <20050303164353.GE10761@kroah.com> <20050303170037.GA10574@thunk.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20050303170037.GA10574@thunk.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1929
Lines: 47

On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 12:00:39PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 08:43:53AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 08:23:39AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > 
> > > So what's the problem with this approach? It would seem to make everybody
> > > happy: it would reduce my load, it would give people the alternate "2.6.x
> > > base kernel plus fixes only" parallell track, and it would _not_ have the 
> > > testability issue (because I think a lot of people would be happy to test 
> > > that tree, and if it was always based on the last 2.6.x release, there 
> > > would be no issues.
> > > 
> > > Anybody?
> > 
> > Well, I'm one person who has said that this would be a very tough
> > problem to solve.  And hey, I like tough problems, so I'll volunteer to
> > start this.  If I burn out, I'll take the responsibility of finding
> > someone else to take it over.
> 
> Ooh, a sucker!

Two of us even :)

> Seriously, I think Linus's plan makes a lot of sense, as a scalable
> way of maintaining a 2.6.x.y release strategy.

I agree, and if Chris and I share the load, it might even make it a bit
more robust in that we can cover for each other when one is traveling,
etc.

> The other thing which would probably be useful to maintain would be a
> list of "known regressions" yet to be fixed in 2.6.x.y, and to address
> the somewhat disturbing assertions that sometimes regressions "light
> up bugzilla" at distro's like Fedora, but don't get reflected back up
> to LKML.  Maybe we could recruit some other sucker to maintain such a
> list?

That would be great, and any help from the distro bug-wranglers would be
appreciated.

thanks,

greg k-h
-
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/