Linus Torvalds wrote:linux-next is _supposed_ to be solely the stuff that is ready to be sent to you upon window-open. The only thing that isn't reliable are the commit ids -- and that's at the request of a large majority of maintainers, who noted to Stephen R that the branch he was pulling from them might get rebased -- thus necessitating the daily tree regeneration. So, I think a 'next' branch from you would open cans o worms: - one more tree to test, and judging from linux-next and -mm it's tough to get developers to test more than just upstream - is the value of holy penguin pee great enough to overcome this another-tree-to-test obstacle? - opens all the debates about running parallel branches, such as, would it be better to /branch/ for 2.6.X-rc, and then keep going full steam on the trunk? After all, the primary logic behind 2.6.X-rc is to only take bug fixes, theoretically focusing developers more on that task. But now we are slowly undoing that logic, or at least openly admitting that has been the reality all along. Jeff --
| Linus Torvalds | Linux 2.6.26-rc4 |
| Satyam Sharma | Re: 2.6.23-rc6-mm1 |
| Chuck Ebbert | Why do so many machines need "noapic"? |
| Jan Engelhardt | Re: LSM conversion to static interface |
| Theo de Raadt | That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing |
| Marco Peereboom | Re: Real men don't attack straw men |
| Marius ROMAN | 1440x900 resolution problem |
| GVG GVG | ssh_exchange_identification: Connection closed by remote host |
git: | |
| Martin Langhoff | Re: git versus CVS (versus bk) |
| Linus Torvalds | People unaware of the importance of "git gc"? |
| Martin Langhoff | Handling large files with GIT |
| Jeff King | Re: Git vs Monotone |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Matheos Worku | 2.6.24 BUG: soft lockup - CPU#X |
| Auke Kok | [PATCH] e1000e: test MSI interrupts |
| Wang Jian | drivers/net/phy/marvell.c: 88e1111 can't get out sleep mode |
