Re: New branch for +1 kernel Was:Re: [PATCH] Use __u64 in aligned_u64's definition

["Paolo Ciarrocchi" <paolo.ciarrocchi@gmail.com>]

On 1/3/08, Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> wrote:
> Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote:
> > This is something i was thinking to suggest.
> > Kernel is made of a lot of different "areas" and the regression list
> > is a great tool for monitoring every single area so why not opening a
> > new branch and accepting patches only for areas which are not in the
> > current regression list.?
>
> Some regressions can't be easily associated with an "area".  And when
> they can, consider the overhead involved with frequently kicking out
> patchsets and taking them in again, based on when regressions become
> known and when they are fixed, respectively.
>
> > Sounds like a good way to be more strict about regressions and
> > incentive people to solve regressions quicker.
>
> To create such a motivation, that branch or tree would have to have a
> practical use in development.  So what purpose would such a tree
> fulfill, considering that we already have a myriad of topic trees and
> the -mm tree for testing and preintegration?

That branch/tree would relax i bit the rule of "two weeks for merging
new stuff" for people who proven to have merged good quality code.

Ciao,
-- 
Paolo
http://paolo.ciarrocchi.googlepages.com/