On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 07:28:34AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 06:49:50AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: ... > > On the other hand, having ptrace/utrace in the -next tree will give it a > > lot more testing, while any outstanding technical issues are being addressed. > > Including experimental code that is RFC and which is not certain to go > upstream is certainly not the purpose of linux-next though. OK. > It will cause conflicts with various other trees and increases the overhead > all around. It also causes us to trust linux-next bugreports less - as it's > not the 'next Linux' anymore. Also, there's virtually no high-level technical > review done in linux-next: the trees are implicitly trusted (because they are > pushed by maintainers), bugs and conflicts are reported but otherwise it's a > neutral tree that includes pretty much any commit indiscriminately. > > If you need review and testing there's a number of trees you can get inclusion > into. So would -tip be one of them? If so could you pull the utrace-ptrace branch in? Or did you intend some other tree (random-tracing)? (Though I think a ptrace reimplementation isn't 'random'-tracing :-)) Ananth -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
