Re: Elaboration on "Equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree"

["Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 7:27 AM, Stefan Richter
<stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> wrote:
> Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
>>> Who are these "people" that you are trying to convince?
>>
>> OK small silly example is convincing distributions it may be a good
>> idea to carry linux-next kernel packages as options to users to
>> hopefully down the road reduce the delta between what they carry and
>> what is actually upstream.
>
> Distros would do their users a bigger favour if they didn't just dump a
> random new driver into their kernel package, but if they instead (or in
> addition) support the process to get new drivers into the mainline.
>
> It's a favour to their users because maintenance in mainline generally
> means better quality.  (Less drivers which break suspend/resume etc. pp.).
>
> It's also a favour to themselves because the maintenance of their kernel
> as a whole will cost less if it is a stabilized derivative of the
> mainline instead of an unstable (and merely potential) predecessor of
> the mainline.

I don't think I was very clear in what I meant about "carrying
linux-next kernel packages as an option". What I meant was carrying it
just as an option for those users who want to test bleeding edge
without compiling their own linux-next, _not_ to merge linux-next
things into their own default kernel release and shove it down users
throats.

  Luis