On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:57 PM, ron minnich <rminn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:23 AM, hiro <23h...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > The more interesting question is: who doesn't agree, and why? > > > > On 5/4/10, Pavel Klinkovsky <pavel.klinkov...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> maybe it is time to try to pack-port some of Erik's stuff to the > canonical > >>> source. > >> I fully agree. > >> > >> Pavel > > The argument here is that we need to sync 9atom back to sources, and > that may well be true. > > But there's another path: > use mercurial to create a clone of > http://bitbucket.org/rminnich/sysfromiso > you can call it 9atom. > > You can put your changes there. > > Then you can use the mercurial tools to continually refresh your 9atom > tree from sysfromiso. > > In that way, you can provide a 9atom tree that is perfectly in sync > with sources, and it is easy for others to see what you have done. > And, most importantly, the maintainers of the main tree can easily see > what they need to see, and figure out what ought to come back to the > mainline, and pull back things that make sense to pull back. > > There is real precedent nowadays for people to maintain forks of a > kernel tree, where they can experiment, and do so in a way that makes > merges back to the mainline easy. > > ron > > Right, forks aren't always evil and to be avoided. In some cases they're just perfect for organized experimentation.
