Re: [ALSA PATCH] 1.0.9b+

[Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>]

Alistair John Strachan <s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> On Thursday 28 Jul 2005 18:25, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Jaroslav Kysela <perex@suse.cz> wrote:
> > > Linus, please do an update from:
> > >
> > >    rsync://rsync.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/perex/alsa.git
> > >
> > > ...
> > >   65 files changed, 5059 insertions(+), 1122 deletions(-)
> >
> > The git-alsa.patch in -mm which I obtain from
> > master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/perex/alsa-current.git is
> > empty.  So we're now wanting to merge 4,000 lines of unreviewed code which
> > hasn't been tested in -mm at approximately the -rc4 stage.
> 
> ~2800 lines of which is a new driver.
> 
> It'd be nice if ALSA's release schedule for "stable" versus "rc" could match 
> the kernel's. For example, 2.6.12 shipped with 1.0.9rc2.
> 
> Maybe "rc" ALSA should only be accepted in rc1, by rc4 you hope they can wrap 
> things up and give you a stable version number? Okay, generally in-tree 
> version numbers don't count for much, but I think ALSA is a big exception 
> because it's maintained pretty much out of tree.
> 
> Not so much of an issue this time around, but I don't think new drivers or 
> rewrites (even if they are reasonably separate) should be going in a late -rc 
> kernel.
> 

Independent of all that, there remains the problem that I was not obtaining
all this new code from
master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/perex/alsa-current.git.

Is there some different tree which I should be pulling from?