Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751178AbWATTWF (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jan 2006 14:22:05 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751179AbWATTWF (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jan 2006 14:22:05 -0500 Received: from free.wgops.com ([69.51.116.66]:6927 "EHLO shell.wgops.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751178AbWATTWD (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jan 2006 14:22:03 -0500 Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:21:40 -0700 From: Michael Loftis To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: dtor_core@ameritech.net, James Courtier-Dutton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Development tree, PLEASE? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <200601201903.k0KJ3qI7006425@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <43D10FF8.8090805@superbug.co.uk> <6769FDC09295B7E6078A5089@d216-220-25-20.dynip.modwest.com> <30D11C032F1FC0FE9CA1CDFD@d216-220-25-20.dynip.modwest.com> <200601201903.k0KJ3qI7006425@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.4 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact support@wgops.com X-MailScanner: WGOPS clean X-MailScanner-From: mloftis@wgops.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1627 Lines: 35 --On January 20, 2006 2:03:52 PM -0500 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > But you're perfectly happy to make the kernel developers do the > equivalent thing when they have to maintain 2 forks (a stable and devel). > Go back and look at the status of the 2.5 tree - there were *large* > chunks of time when 2.4 or 2.5 would get an important bugfix, but the > other tree wouldn't get it for *weeks* because of the hassle of > cross-porting the patch. To more fully respond though.... Weeks is fine, and better than never. And there may be cases in which the decision has to be made to 'abandon' a particular stable release in favor of a newer version because of the difficulty or inability to backport fixes. I think that it's fine to push the maintenance effort away from the mainline developers, probably even desireable, but then the bugfixing/etc tends to happen in a disparate manner, off on lots of forks at different places without them making their way back to some central place. And that seems where we're going with this conversation. A fork/forks at various versions to maintain bugfixes and support updates that's (more?) open to submitters writing patches. Maintained by a separate group or party, but with the 'blessing' from mainline to do so. A place for those sorts of efforts to be focused, without necessarily involving the primary developers. - 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/