On 11/01/13 02:36, Thierry Reding wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > There have been some discussions lately revolving around the topic of > linux-next fixes. That is, commits that people come up with over the > course of a day to fix issues found in the latest linux-next trees. > > It's a fact that many people rely on linux-next for everyday work, so > whenever things break in linux-next a lot of people end up chasing the > same bugs and posting the same patches (or not posting them for that > matter). > > A lot of developer time is wasted that way, so I originally proposed > that we could set up a separate linux-next-fixes tree where we collect > patches of interest. I volunteer to do that, since, well, I'm doing it > anyway as part of my daily routine. Timezone-wise it also fits pretty > well, since I usually start my day sometime around when you publish > linux-next. > > If we can establish a canonical location where such fixes are > accumulated, people could fetch those at the same time they fetch the > linux-next tree and automatically get fixes. Stephen has had a location for linux-next fixes for quite some time now -- in the linux-next tree itself. Apparently Olof objected to this and you agreed with him. and I object to not having the fixes in the linux-next tree. Maybe Stephen can work it out. :) > One idea was to carry those fixes within the linux-next tree, within > separate tags (next-YYYYMMDD-fixes). If you don't feel comfortable with > that I suppose we could also set up a separate repository. It that case > I think it would still make sense to run it as part of the "Linux Next > Group" on kernel.org. > > What do you think? If it's something you'd be okay with I can contact > the administrators to have me added to the linux-next group. -- ~Randy -- 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
