On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 06:47:27PM +0400, Kir Kolyshkin wrote: > As for mainstream integration, I can say OpenVZ is committed to merging > "containers" functionality to mainstream. I have just checked the number > of changesets submitted by OpenVZ and Linux-VServer guys, using > up-to-date Linus' kernel git tree. For the last 365 days (i.e. a year) > there were 818 changesets from OpenVZ guys and only 14 patches from > VServer guys. These numbers could be wrong (maybe I'm missing someone) > but not totally wrong. > > Also, IMHO the document > http://wiki.debian.org/DebianKernelPatchAcceptanceGuidelines is not > applicable to this case because it describes patches that are [not] > welcome to "standard" Debian kernel, while OpenVZ, Linux-VServer, Xen > etc. provide "flavored" kernels. In other words, these all are special > kernels with special use cases. So, either this policy is not > applicable, or linux-image-vserver and linux-image-xen are all not > conforming to the policy. > > As for 2.6.26, OpenVZ team plans to start porting to that kernel as soon > as 2.6.26-rc1 is released. > <http://wiki.debian.org/DebianKernelPatchAcceptanceGuidelines?action=fullsearch&value=linkto%3A%22DebianKernelPatchAcceptanceGuidelines%22&context=180> >
Thanks for this analysis of ports. Just to mention that i believe the current rules or at least the current position concerning patches are too restrictive and rigid. I tried to move about this concerning architecture support patches, see in : http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=439006 Maybe you should post something there about what you write above, and we can retitle this bug or something, but there needs to be some discussion to happen about this above policy, and the debian kernel team need to losen a bit about this. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
