From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261380AbTHZQQb (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Aug 2003 12:16:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262052AbTHZQQb (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Aug 2003 12:16:31 -0400 Received: from willy.net1.nerim.net ([62.212.114.60]:61707 "EHLO www.home.local") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261380AbTHZQQ3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Aug 2003 12:16:29 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 18:11:49 +0200 From: Willy Tarreau To: Rene Rebe Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: linux-2.4.22 released Message-ID: <20030826161149.GA25064@alpha.home.local> References: <200308251148.h7PBmU8B027700@hera.kernel.org> <20030825132358.GC14108@merlin.emma.line.org> <20030826.151903.640928788.rene.rebe@gmx.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030826.151903.640928788.rene.rebe@gmx.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 03:19:03PM +0200, Rene Rebe wrote: > Hi, > > On: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 15:23:58 +0200, > Matthias Andree wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > > > - 2.4.22-rc4 was released as 2.4.22 with no changes. > > I would like to vote for i2c-2.8.0 ... Well, there are two types of patches/add-ons out there : - those which always apply very well and very easily : ALSA, i2c, ... - those which are very sensible to frequent core changes : VM, FS, ... ACPI and IDE were of the later type, and were included lately, one at a time. This greatly eased the production of "alternative" kernels, because most others were really easy to add. Considering that Marcelo will never apply everything at once, would you find more interesting that he merges difficult parts once, and let the easy ones to all of us, or that he merges only the easy parts and let us have a hard time merging the rest every time a new pre-release goes out ? If I had the choice, I'd rather merge ALSA, i2c and friends myself, and rely on a correctly merged VM or XFS or whatever. When you compile ALSA or i2c for your kernel, you don't even notice that they touch the kernel, so what's the problem ? We're not *that* lazy ! As a final note, I would say that this even increases test coverage : let's assume that 1% of us replace the VM, while 20% add i2c. Then including i2c will lead to 100% of us testing it and 1% of us testing the VM. On the other hand, merging the VM into mainline whill lead to 100% of us testing it and 20% of us testing i2c. Which case do you think is more reasonable for stability ? Regards, Willy