Hi Sebastian, On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 06:59:44PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 11/23/2015 04:03 PM, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > Thanks! Yes, a stable branch name would be better than "linux-4.1.y-rt" > > that's like to become stable over time. > > finally. I got to it. > I pushed two branches @ pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rt/linux-rt-devel.git: > > for-kbuild-bot/current-stable [0] > for-kbuild-bot/prepare-release [1] > > Branch [0] should contain the last -RT release. This could be used for > testing patches against (if you find one with the RT marker in subject). > The tree should start a stable-tree marker (currently it is v4.1.13) > and have -RT tree applied on top. You should be able compile after each > commit (between the stable tag and HEAD) and nothing should introduce > warnings or fail to compile. Got it, I've updated the RT => for-kbuild-bot/current-stable mapping accordingly, thanks for the info! > The second branch [1] would be similar to the first one except that I > plan to push stuff there before I make a release it. Does this make > sense or do I over think this? It's fair enough. > If you do compile tests, it would be nice if you could enable > CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL. That is where most of the changes start to work. > Nevertheless it should also work without it(i.e. no preemption or > desktop). OK, I'll increase testing for CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL when it's the RT tree. > If you have slightly different naming scheme or suggestions just tell > me I will adapt to it:) > > Thank you for the service. You are welcome! Thanks, Fengguang -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
