Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750821AbWIUIuT (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Sep 2006 04:50:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750823AbWIUIuT (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Sep 2006 04:50:19 -0400 Received: from outpipe-village-512-1.bc.nu ([81.2.110.250]:47322 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750821AbWIUIuR (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Sep 2006 04:50:17 -0400 Subject: Re: 2.6.19 -mm merge plans From: Alan Cox To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Andrew Morton , Jeff Garzik , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: <20060920135438.d7dd362b.akpm@osdl.org> <45121382.1090403@garzik.org> <20060920220744.0427539d.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:12:38 +0100 Message-Id: <1158829958.11109.80.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.2 (2.6.2-1.fc5.5) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 945 Lines: 23 Ar Mer, 2006-09-20 am 22:23 -0700, ysgrifennodd Linus Torvalds: > > On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > Why would a shorter cycle be better? What are we trying to achieve? > > I don't think a shorter cycle is necessarily better, but I think we could > try having a more "directed" cycle, and perhaps merge certain specific > things rather than everything. Works for me. We do need to keep pushing drivers each cycle (and we need faster cycles just to keep up with the chipset people) but a situation where people are told to keep those driver updates working with the old core code would be fine (ie as 2.4 sometimes was) for some of the cycles when they are not the goal. Alan - 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/