From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757023AbYEAEra (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2008 00:47:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752147AbYEAErV (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2008 00:47:21 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:40123 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752128AbYEAErV (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2008 00:47:21 -0400 Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:46:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Jeff Garzik cc: Paul Mackerras , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , David Miller , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Jiri Slaby Subject: Re: Slow DOWN, please!!! In-Reply-To: <48194464.2000406@garzik.org> Message-ID: References: <20080429.190352.137408408.davem@davemloft.net> <200804302136.58005.rjw@sisk.pl> <18457.219.995207.136771@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <48194464.2000406@garzik.org> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (LFD 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 1 May 2008, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > linux-next is _supposed_ to be solely the stuff that is ready to be sent to > you upon window-open. Yes, the "stuff" may be supposed to be stable. But the trees feeding it certainly are not. People are rebasing them etc, and it doesn't matter because I think linux-next starts largely from scratch next time around. > So, I think a 'next' branch from you would open cans o worms: > > - one more tree to test, and judging from linux-next and -mm it's tough to get > developers to test more than just upstream > > - is the value of holy penguin pee great enough to overcome this > another-tree-to-test obstacle? > > - opens all the debates about running parallel branches, such as, would it be > better to /branch/ for 2.6.X-rc, and then keep going full steam on the trunk? I do agree. And maybe I should have made it clear that I think it's worth it to me only if it then means that the merge window can shrink. If I'd have both a 'next' branch _and_ a full 2-week merge window, there's no upside. Btw, it wouldn't be another tree to test, since it would presumaby be what 'linux-next' starts out from - so it would purely be something that doesn't have the constant re-merging of the more wild-and-crazy 'linux-next' tree. Linus