Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261617AbVC2XBq (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:01:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261614AbVC2XBq (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:01:46 -0500 Received: from fire.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:7572 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261617AbVC2XBo (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:01:44 -0500 Message-ID: <4249DD83.80600@osdl.org> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:58:11 -0800 From: "Randy.Dunlap" Organization: OSDL User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "L. A. Walsh" CC: Linux-Kernel Subject: Re: RFC: 2.6.release.patchlevel: Patch against 2.6.release[.0] ? References: <4249DC03.4000806@tlinx.org> In-Reply-To: <4249DC03.4000806@tlinx.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2062 Lines: 42 L. A. Walsh wrote: > Given the frequency with which stabilization patches may be released, it > may not be practical to expect users to catch each release announcement > and download each patch. > > Especially if small patches are released for stability, as one might > (hopefully) expect. Assuming that stability and "fix-it" patches will > generally be small (I'd hope). Seeing that the latest "fix-it" patch > is already at ".6", I'd have to load multiple patches to catch up from > 2.6.11. I blinked my eyes and missed a few or 5 previous stability > patches, so I just downloaded the entire bzip...not a biggie, but > might create less load on servers if I didn't need to go through 6 > patch applications to get current. > > What do people think? Would it be desirable to have the stability > patchsets based against the base release (2.6.11 in this case)? I'll > already have downloaded 2.6.11 or the previous base release, but > with the frequency of patch releases, it might be more reasonable to > have patch revisions all patch against a base release rather than > having to download and apply what may grow to be a large number (but > small diff) against a base release? > > Do people think patch-releases will get too big, or might it not > be easier to apply them to a constant downloaded copy of the base? > > It's a bit amusing since I was one of those that complained about the > kernel stability, but 2.6.11 has been fairly solid for me, so, of course, > I'm 6 patches behind -- I don't think the patch release notifications > are getting as wide-spread press (or at least not reaching "/." :-)) as > the main releases get. After some initial discussions, the patches now are generated against 2.6.x.0, so to get to 2.6.11.6, you only need to download and apply one patchset... -- ~Randy - 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/