On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Pavel Roskin<proski@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 16:12 -0400, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> >> +Stable kernel releases >> +---------------------- >> + >> +Stable kernels are released when they are ready. This means there is no >> +strict guidelines for sticking to specific dates for a kernel release. > > there are no strict guidelines > >> +After a maintainer has sent his pull request to Linus during the merge >> +window no further new development will be accepted for that tree and >> +as such it marks the closure of development for that subsystem for that >> +kernel cycle. Developers wishing to target deadlines should simply work >> +on their development without regards or consideration for inclusion to >> +a specific kernel release. Once development is done it should simply be >> +posted. If you insist on targetting a kernel release for deadlines you can > > targeting > >> +try to be aware of the current rc cycle development and how soon it seems >> +the next stable kernel relase will be made. When Linus notes the last rc > > release > >> +cycle released may be the last -- that is a good sign you should already >> +have all your development done and merged in the respective development >> +tree. If your code is not ready and merged into the respective maintainers >> +tree prior to the announced last potential rc kernel release chances are >> +you missed getting your code in for the next kernel merge window. >> +Excemptions here are new drivers, covered below. > > Exemptions > >> +rc-series rules >> +--------------- >> + >> +Rules on what kind of patches are accepted after the merge window closes. >> +These are patches targetted for the kernel rc-series of a kernel prior > > targeted > >> +to its release. >> + >> + - it must fix a reported regression >> + - if must fix a reported security hole >> + - if must fix a reported oops/kernel hang >> + >> +This means any small-non-fix code changes, although they mix fix an issue, > > might fix > >> +will not be accepted. If the patch in question is for a driver that has been >> +around for more than a kernel release, then "small fixes" really can't be >> +worth all that much. And "small fixes" may be small and "obvious" they >> +definitely can regress. >> + >> +rc-series new driver excemption rule > > exemption > >> +------------------------------------ >> + >> +The very first release a new driver (or filesystem) is special. New drivers >> +are accepted during the rc series. Patches for the same driver then are >> +also accepted uring the same rc series of a kernel as well as fixes as it > > during > >> +cannot regress as no previous kernels exists with it. >> + >> +Once drivers are upstream for one kernel release (say on 2.6.29) the target >> +*goal* after the merge window of the next kernel (respectively this would be >> +the 2.6.30 rc-series) is to address address regressions. Kernel oops/hangs > > s/address address/address/ > >> +and security issues are obviously accepted but the point is these should have >> +also been caught earlier as a general development goal. The rc-series focus >> +should really be to address regressions. >> + >> +Stable kernel rules >> +------------------- >> + >> Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and which ones are not, into the >> "-stable" tree: > > Sorry, I'm in pedantic mood today. At least you didn't end up making a spelling error in any of your corrections. :-) > > -- > Regards, > Pavel Roskin > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- Vista: [V]iruses, [I]ntruders, [S]pyware, [T]rojans and [A]dware. :-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
