Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755070Ab1DDWLY (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Apr 2011 18:11:24 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.124]:46045 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754127Ab1DDWLX (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Apr 2011 18:11:23 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=ZtuXOl23UuD1yoJUTgnZ6i6Z5VPlPhPMWCeUNtN8OGA= c=1 sm=0 a=wom5GMh1gUkA:10 a=qfFVHXmYx5UA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=eAWTIsOZi86Vnn5xZOjC/w==:17 a=Z4Rwk6OoAAAA:8 a=KwWQQSdE4F3juHBmBowA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=jbrJJM5MRmoA:10 a=eAWTIsOZi86Vnn5xZOjC/w==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 70.123.154.172 Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 17:11:21 -0500 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" To: Andrew Morton Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" , "Serge E. Hallyn" , containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, Nathan Lynch , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexey Dobriyan Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] Core checkpoint/restart support code Message-ID: <20110404221121.GA30213@hallyn.com> References: <1298936432-29607-1-git-send-email-ntl@pobox.com> <1298936432-29607-6-git-send-email-ntl@pobox.com> <20110403190324.GD15044@hallyn.com> <1301929228.31531.39.camel@tp-t61> <20110404151017.GA4857@hallyn.com> <1301931608.31531.49.camel@tp-t61> <20110404162753.GA3456@hallyn.com> <20110404104119.78189678.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20110404185119.GB4782@peq.hallyn.com> <20110404124222.fd5eb85b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110404124222.fd5eb85b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 989 Lines: 21 Quoting Andrew Morton (akpm@linux-foundation.org): > > As you know, we started with a minimal patchset, then grew it over time > > to answer the "but how will you (xyz) without uglifying the kernel". > > Would you recommend we go back to keeping a separate minimal patchset, > > or that we develop on the current, pretty feature-full version? I'm not > > convinced believe there will be bandwidth to keep two trees and do both > > justice. > > The minimal patchset is too minimal for Oren's use and the maximal > patchset seems to have run aground on general kernel sentiment. So I Sorry, when you say 'minimal patchset', are you referring to Nathan's tree? Or a truly minimal patchset like what we originally started with? thanks, -serge -- 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/