On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 08:09:57AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > 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. What I did agree to was a compromise. I do see some sense in not carrying all the fixes in linux-next so that the actual state of brokenness is reflected. But I also think that for everyone using linux-next for daily work it makes sense to have these patches in a central location in order to minimize duplicate work. > Maybe Stephen can work it out. :) If nobody wants to have this in linux-next itself, then I still plan on maintaining a tree for myself so that people that work in the same areas in a later timezone don't have to duplicate all of that. Thierry
Attachment:
pgpqf2irZLnoW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
