Kenneth Aafl?y wrote: > On Wednesday 23 March 2005 21:37, Kenneth Aafl?y wrote: > > On Sunday 20 March 2005 18:51, Johannes Stezenbach wrote: > > > So maybe it's now time to apply the patch that C.Y.M posted > > > to the list a while ago? Or should we wait for 2.6.12? > > > > I'm thinking waiting for your downstream sync of the dvb-kernel tree should > > be in before changes made in it are synced back, make sense? > > Just to be clear here, I'm talking about mainline, not Andrew's mm tree. IMHO the question is if CVS should work with the latest -rc or with the latest "stable" kernel. We might get more testers for the stuff in CVS if it applies to stable, but it is unconvenient for developers... I vote to merge it now and require 2.6.12-r1 for CVS. > > I'm wondering tho, can large cleanups that risc the driver stability be > > committed now, since the test-time in the dvb-kernel tree will be maximized > > before the next sync downstream? Yes. Do you care to tell us what you want to do before comitting? BTW, I've submitted everything upstream except the flexcop rewrite (too big, too new) and the dvb_register_adapter() API change (Gerd Knorr's drivers need to follow that change; I have an untested patch for it). It should appear in 2.6.12-rc1-mm2 and/or 2.6.12-rc2. Other stuff will not go in before 2.6.12, except small, important fixes. Johannes
