On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:10:26PM +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote: > > 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 :-)) Heh. No this is a tree I use for, well, random tracing patches indeed, which has extended to random tracing/perf/* patches by the time. I sometimes relay other's patches to Ingo toward this tree but this is usually about small volumes and for small term storage: patches that have been reviewed/acked already. utrace/uprobe is about high volume and longer time debate/review/maintainance and I won't have the time to carry this. > 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
