Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 3 Jan 2008 19:47:59 +0330 | From | "Paolo Ciarrocchi" <> | Subject | Re: New branch for +1 kernel Was:Re: [PATCH] Use __u64 in aligned_u64's definition |
| |
On 1/3/08, Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> wrote: > Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote: > > This is something i was thinking to suggest. > > Kernel is made of a lot of different "areas" and the regression list > > is a great tool for monitoring every single area so why not opening a > > new branch and accepting patches only for areas which are not in the > > current regression list.? > > Some regressions can't be easily associated with an "area". And when > they can, consider the overhead involved with frequently kicking out > patchsets and taking them in again, based on when regressions become > known and when they are fixed, respectively. > > > Sounds like a good way to be more strict about regressions and > > incentive people to solve regressions quicker. > > To create such a motivation, that branch or tree would have to have a > practical use in development. So what purpose would such a tree > fulfill, considering that we already have a myriad of topic trees and > the -mm tree for testing and preintegration?
That branch/tree would relax i bit the rule of "two weeks for merging new stuff" for people who proven to have merged good quality code.
Ciao, -- Paolo http://paolo.ciarrocchi.googlepages.com/
| |