On 04/24/2011 03:07 AM, Emmanuel Benisty wrote:
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Tobias Powalowski<t.powa@xxxxxx> wrote:
Am Sonntag 24 April 2011 schrieb Emmanuel Benisty:
Hi,
I was having some sound issue with ARCH 2.6.38.3 stock kernel so I
started to bisect it from Greg KH's 2.6.38.y stable tree.
.38.2 was good and .38.3 was bad (so I thought) but I hadn't any
single bad commit during bisecting. However, .38.4 /was/ bad. I could
finally find the guilty commit (which is in .38.4) but couldn't
understand why I was hit by this issue even with 2.6.38.3-ARCH. Then I
diff'd both .38.3 patches and found out that Arch's one includes
patches that are not in Greg's release. It seems we include patches
that are still in -stable patch queue.
Finally, I just have one question: is that normal? All I can say is
that it made my bisecting session a real PITA. Please give me back my
CPU cycles :P
Cheers.
-- Emmanuel
The .3 contained some prepatches from the stable queue.
That is the explanation for it.
Thanks Tobias but I already learned that the hard way :P
Should we really do that? Or in that case, shouldn't the package be
given another version? That is really confusing.
Furthermore, those patches are still being tested in a way. Here's
what Greg KH says in the announcement:
"If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
let us know."
That is before the .y release...
I don't think including additional patches is a big deal. But I've seen
discussion lately on how to include them. I think separating the ARCH patches
from the .y patch would be nice. And then additional patches should be added
individually.
