On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 01:55:24PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Wed, 23 Oct 2013, Richard Cochran wrote: > > I still don't understand why someone (linario?) can't host an > > arm-dt-devel tree that allows the freedom to change bindings and > > features the best source for supporting the latest ARM SoCs. I don't > > buy the argument that only Linus' tree gets enough testing. If another > > tree really is the best ARM tree, then it will get plenty of attention > > and testing. > > So you're basically saying that we should split the development effort > across multiple trees instead of encouraging people to converge on the > same tree? This is completely contrary to all the efforts we've been > deploying to encourage people to submit their code upstream. No, just a single tree, please. > ii> As an end user, I don't mind waiting for a feature if that means > > stability and QA. If I get impatient, still I always have the choice > > to take a development version. But I do not want to be forced to take > > unfinished work in a released kernel. > > If as an end user you want full QA, you should go with a distro kernel. No, no, NO! I won't ship a distro kernel because they screw things up (at least, in my experience). I will ship a 3.x.y stable kernel, though. > We're talking about the upstream kernel here, and given the current > development and release rate we hardly can guarantee you that it'll be > free of unfinished work (as long as it doesn't regress existing > features). I read a quote from a Big Cheese saying how the Linux kernel is a stable release cycle. There are bugs, to be sure, but, in my experience, each release is pretty stable on x86 (but not on arm). Thanks, Richard -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
