Linus wrote (back on 4th March):
:The even/odd situation would have made for a situation that some people
:seem to be arguing for (more explicit calming-down period), but with the
:difference that I think the odd ones should definitely have been
:user-release quality already. But that one was
Linus wrote (back on 4th March):
:The even/odd situation would have made for a situation that some people
:seem to be arguing for (more explicit calming-down period), but with the
:difference that I think the odd ones should definitely have been
:user-release quality already. But that one was
> "Andrew" == Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andrew> Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Now, I haven't actually gotten any complaints about 2.6.11 (apart
>> from "gcc4 still has problems" with fairly trivial solutions)
Andrew> There have been quite a few. Mainly
Andrew == Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andrew Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, I haven't actually gotten any complaints about 2.6.11 (apart
from gcc4 still has problems with fairly trivial solutions)
Andrew There have been quite a few. Mainly driver stuff again:
Hi!
> > The fact that not a script, but Linus Torvalds, decides that the tree is
> > in a state he likes to share with others. You have been doing -pre's all
> > this time, it's just that you are calling them -rc's.
>
> No.
>
> I used to do "-pre", a long time ago. Exactly because they were
Hi!
The fact that not a script, but Linus Torvalds, decides that the tree is
in a state he likes to share with others. You have been doing -pre's all
this time, it's just that you are calling them -rc's.
No.
I used to do -pre, a long time ago. Exactly because they were
--- Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 00:25 +0100, szonyi calin wrote:
> > --- Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> > Taking into account that nobody responded on lkml nor
> > on alsa (the message was awaiting modderator aprouval
> > on alsa-devel) i don't
On Maw, 2005-03-08 at 23:50, Lee Revell wrote:
> This only works because those OS'es come bundled with a toy softsynth.
> With ALSA, you either need a supported hardware wavetable synth
> (emu10k1) or a real soft synth like Timidity or Fluidsynth.
CS4239 has a toy synth of sorts (its more
szonyi calin wrote:
Let me tell you what i understood from this thread:
2.6.12 "almost stable"
2.6.13 devel (new drivers,fixes and stuff -- may be broken)
2.6.14 (based on 2.6.13) tries to became stable again
2.6.15 also devel (see above)
2.6.16 (based on 2.6.15) also tries to became stable again
--- Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
>
> Tangent: I would like to see requests-for-testing for FC
> kernels on LKML.
>
> If people announce -ac/-as/-aa/-ck/etc. kernels on LKML, why
> not distro
> kernels?
>
>
Because some people switched to other distribution also
because of
--- Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Tangent: I would like to see requests-for-testing for FC
kernels on LKML.
If people announce -ac/-as/-aa/-ck/etc. kernels on LKML, why
not distro
kernels?
Because some people switched to other distribution also
because of the
szonyi calin wrote:
Let me tell you what i understood from this thread:
2.6.12 almost stable
2.6.13 devel (new drivers,fixes and stuff -- may be broken)
2.6.14 (based on 2.6.13) tries to became stable again
2.6.15 also devel (see above)
2.6.16 (based on 2.6.15) also tries to became stable again
On Maw, 2005-03-08 at 23:50, Lee Revell wrote:
This only works because those OS'es come bundled with a toy softsynth.
With ALSA, you either need a supported hardware wavetable synth
(emu10k1) or a real soft synth like Timidity or Fluidsynth.
CS4239 has a toy synth of sorts (its more doorbell
--- Lee Revell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 00:25 +0100, szonyi calin wrote:
--- Dave Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Taking into account that nobody responded on lkml nor
on alsa (the message was awaiting modderator aprouval
on alsa-devel) i don't think i will
On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 00:25 +0100, szonyi calin wrote:
> --- Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> Taking into account that nobody responded on lkml nor
> on alsa (the message was awaiting modderator aprouval
> on alsa-devel) i don't think i will send more bug reports
> to alsa.
How
On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 00:25 +0100, szonyi calin wrote:
> I reported once a bug on alsa-devel and cc-ed on lkml
> The sequencer isn't working with my card cs4239 with alsa.
>
What exactly do you mean by "it isn't working"?
90% of "MIDI does not work" bug reports are from users who expect
--- Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 05:15:36PM -0800, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > But when pressed about the issue of speed of development,
> rate of
> > change, feature increase, driver updates, and so on, no one
> else has any
> >
szonyi calin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I reported once a bug on alsa-devel and cc-ed on lkml
> The sequencer isn't working with my card cs4239 with alsa.
>
I cannot find your report (checked back to the start of the year).
Please send a new one. I'm collection them.
-
To unsubscribe from
--- Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> > Grump. Have all these regressions received the appropriate
> level of
> > visibility on this mailing list?
>
> For the most part these things are usually known about by
> their upstream
> authors. To give an example: ALSA update in 2.6.10
--- Zwane Mwaikambo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Certainly -mm can be the feature tree, but i've noticed that
> not that many
> people run -mm aside from developers. Meaning that a fair
> number of bugs
> seep into Linus' tree before they get attended to. It would
> even be more
> effective
Linus Torvalds wrote:
Okay, I stayed out of this until the dust has settled, but I do have a
few thoughts.
First is that naming is important if people are to understand the
release system, and I think a lot of people don't. So why not:
- put out -devN kernel for testing, lots of people don't
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 03:26:32AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Looking at the http://l4x.org/k/ site, it appears that all -mm versions
> > have broken ARM support with the defconfig, while Linus kernels at least
> > build fine.
>
> It's very much in an arch maintainer's interest to make
--- "Randy.Dunlap" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
>
> Maybe I don't understand? Is someone expecting distro
> quality/stability from kernel.org kernels?
> I don't, but maybe I'm one of those minorities.
>
yes. Some people (like me) would like to use from time to time
some _new_ stable
--- Randy.Dunlap [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Maybe I don't understand? Is someone expecting distro
quality/stability from kernel.org kernels?
I don't, but maybe I'm one of those minorities.
yes. Some people (like me) would like to use from time to time
some _new_ stable kernel. It's
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 03:26:32AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Looking at the http://l4x.org/k/ site, it appears that all -mm versions
have broken ARM support with the defconfig, while Linus kernels at least
build fine.
It's very much in an arch maintainer's interest to make sure that
Linus Torvalds wrote:
Okay, I stayed out of this until the dust has settled, but I do have a
few thoughts.
First is that naming is important if people are to understand the
release system, and I think a lot of people don't. So why not:
- put out -devN kernel for testing, lots of people don't
--- Zwane Mwaikambo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Certainly -mm can be the feature tree, but i've noticed that
not that many
people run -mm aside from developers. Meaning that a fair
number of bugs
seep into Linus' tree before they get attended to. It would
even be more
effective if we
--- Dave Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Grump. Have all these regressions received the appropriate
level of
visibility on this mailing list?
For the most part these things are usually known about by
their upstream
authors. To give an example: ALSA update in 2.6.10 broke
sound
szonyi calin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I reported once a bug on alsa-devel and cc-ed on lkml
The sequencer isn't working with my card cs4239 with alsa.
I cannot find your report (checked back to the start of the year).
Please send a new one. I'm collection them.
-
To unsubscribe from this
--- Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 05:15:36PM -0800, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
But when pressed about the issue of speed of development,
rate of
change, feature increase, driver updates, and so on, no one
else has any
clue of what to do.
On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 00:25 +0100, szonyi calin wrote:
I reported once a bug on alsa-devel and cc-ed on lkml
The sequencer isn't working with my card cs4239 with alsa.
What exactly do you mean by it isn't working?
90% of MIDI does not work bug reports are from users who expect
playing MIDI
On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 00:25 +0100, szonyi calin wrote:
--- Dave Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Taking into account that nobody responded on lkml nor
on alsa (the message was awaiting modderator aprouval
on alsa-devel) i don't think i will send more bug reports
to alsa.
How long ago
On Sul, 2005-03-06 at 07:53, Andres Salomon wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 23:15:03 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> There's also no other (suitable) place to announce kernel trees. Debian
> kernels get announced on various debian-related lists; I'd imagine FC
> kernels have the same thing. The only
On Sul, 2005-03-06 at 22:43, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > 2.6.x.y needs several people to keep it tight and to ensure there is
> > always cover on a security fix.
>
> Eh?
>
> Like you add security fix and then some formatting change to hide it?
Cover has rather too many meanings I guess. Cover as
Hi!
> > The point is that it's happening anyway. See Andres' -as tree which
> > is the basis for the Debian vendor kernel. Getting that up to an
> > official status as 2.6.x.y would be very nice (and having it on
> > linux.bkbits.net)
>
> IMHO it is nowhere near conservative enough (or at
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 02:53:26AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> There's also no other (suitable) place to announce kernel trees. Debian
> kernels get announced on various debian-related lists; I'd imagine FC
> kernels have the same thing. The only place to announce non-distro trees
> is lkml
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 02:53:26AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
There's also no other (suitable) place to announce kernel trees. Debian
kernels get announced on various debian-related lists; I'd imagine FC
kernels have the same thing. The only place to announce non-distro trees
is lkml
Hi!
The point is that it's happening anyway. See Andres' -as tree which
is the basis for the Debian vendor kernel. Getting that up to an
official status as 2.6.x.y would be very nice (and having it on
linux.bkbits.net)
IMHO it is nowhere near conservative enough (or at times complete
On Sul, 2005-03-06 at 22:43, Pavel Machek wrote:
2.6.x.y needs several people to keep it tight and to ensure there is
always cover on a security fix.
Eh?
Like you add security fix and then some formatting change to hide it?
Cover has rather too many meanings I guess. Cover as in there
On Sul, 2005-03-06 at 07:53, Andres Salomon wrote:
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 23:15:03 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
There's also no other (suitable) place to announce kernel trees. Debian
kernels get announced on various debian-related lists; I'd imagine FC
kernels have the same thing. The only place
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 23:15:03 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 04:28:52PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> Bill Rugolsky Jr. wrote:
>> >I've watched you periodically announce "hey, I'm doing an update for
>> >FC3/FC2, please test" on the mail list, and a handful of people go test.
Clearly I picked a bad week to go on vacation..
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005
10:18:41 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
[...]
>
> Alan, I think your problem is that you really think that the tree _I_ want
> is what _you_ want.
>
> I look at this from a _layering_ standpoint. Not from a "stable tree"
>
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 08:41:34PM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> That's true. I guess my lack of trust in vendor kernels is part being
> bitten by them in the past where my own custom build vanilla kernels have
> worked fine, and part the fear of getting locked-in to some vendor
> specific
Russell King:
Two things - are you sure that openembedded contains the patches to
fix the two biggest binutils issues we have, as documented on
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/toolchain/ ?
I've checked and it contains the tc-arm.c.patch but does not have the ARM
mapping symbols fix. As
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 11:32:18AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 11:16 +, Russell King wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 11:11:38AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 10:52 +, Russell King wrote:
> > > > Unfortunately, http://l4x.org/k/ doesn't
John Alvord wrote:
One way to handle the transition into bug-fix only would be to turn
the tree over to the $stability crew at that moment. They would have
the job of nursing it to stability under the given ground rules.
Yes. However, the discussion is now over due to the .1 work which solves
a
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 14:23:37 +0100, Rene Herman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
>> Rene Herman wrote:
>>
>>> Doing -pre and real -rc will get you more testers for -rc. Whether or
>>
>>> Add in the fourth level .k releases for real problematic bugs found
>>> after release as
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 14:23:37 +0100, Rene Herman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Rene Herman wrote:
Doing -pre and real -rc will get you more testers for -rc. Whether or
Add in the fourth level .k releases for real problematic bugs found
after release as you did with
John Alvord wrote:
One way to handle the transition into bug-fix only would be to turn
the tree over to the $stability crew at that moment. They would have
the job of nursing it to stability under the given ground rules.
Yes. However, the discussion is now over due to the .1 work which solves
a
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 11:32:18AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 11:16 +, Russell King wrote:
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 11:11:38AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 10:52 +, Russell King wrote:
Unfortunately, http://l4x.org/k/ doesn't save any
Russell King:
Two things - are you sure that openembedded contains the patches to
fix the two biggest binutils issues we have, as documented on
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/toolchain/ ?
I've checked and it contains the tc-arm.c.patch but does not have the ARM
mapping symbols fix. As
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 08:41:34PM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
That's true. I guess my lack of trust in vendor kernels is part being
bitten by them in the past where my own custom build vanilla kernels have
worked fine, and part the fear of getting locked-in to some vendor
specific feature...
Clearly I picked a bad week to go on vacation..
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005
10:18:41 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
[...]
Alan, I think your problem is that you really think that the tree _I_ want
is what _you_ want.
I look at this from a _layering_ standpoint. Not from a stable tree
standpoint
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 23:15:03 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 04:28:52PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Bill Rugolsky Jr. wrote:
I've watched you periodically announce hey, I'm doing an update for
FC3/FC2, please test on the mail list, and a handful of people go test.
If we could
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> > We have all these problems precisely because _nobody_ is saying "I'm
> > only going to accept bug fixes". We _need_ some amount of release
> > engineering. Right now we basically have none.
>
> I
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Rene Herman wrote:
Linus Torvalds wrote:
I've long since decided that there's no point to making "-pre". What's the
difference between a "-pre" and a daily -bk snapshot? Really?
The fact that not a script, but Linus Torvalds, decides that the tree is in a
state he likes to
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 12:37:05PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>...
> I used to do "-pre", a long time ago. Exactly because they were
> synchronization points for developers.
>...
> So the point of -pre's are gone. Have people actually _looked_ at the -rc
> releases? They are very much done when
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> >
> > It might still be worth a try, especially since so many people are
> > convinced this is the way to go (your fault or not is not the point).
>
> Making releases is actually a fair bit of work.
On Friday 04 March 2005 15:37, Linus Torvalds wrote:
[...]
>No.
>
>I used to do "-pre", a long time ago. Exactly because they were
>synchronization points for developers.
>
>These days, that's pointless. We keep the tree in pretty good
> working order (certainly as good as my -pre's ever were)
>
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 02:22:19PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> That's now eight architectures I'll compile-test mm kernels on.
Cool, but please check whether this produces an error:
echo "mov r0, #foo" | arm-linux-as -o /dev/null -
you should get:
{standard input}: Assembler messages:
"Richard Purdie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As an experiment I ran "bitbake meta-sdk" on my copy of openemedded. A while
> later I have these in the deploy directory amongst other things.
>
> http://www.rpsys.net/openzaurus/arm-cross/binutils-cross-sdk-2.15.91.0.2-r5.tar.gz
>
> (3.8MB)
>
Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 02:22:19PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > That's now eight architectures I'll compile-test mm kernels on.
>
> Cool, but please check whether this produces an error:
>
> echo "mov r0, #foo" | arm-linux-as -o /dev/null -
>
> you
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 02:48:08PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 02:22:19PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > That's now eight architectures I'll compile-test mm kernels on.
> >
> > Cool, but please check whether this
Matt Mackall wrote:
> One last plea for the 2.4 scheme:
>
> I think naming the interim releases -pre/-rc has done this admirably
> for 2.4.
I agree. This makes more sense to me than some implicit understanding
about the parity of the revision.
rc is easy to understand, and '-pre' is easy to
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 12:07:23PM -0700, Steven Cole wrote:
>
> Here's an idea which might just be too simple, but here it is anyway:
>
> Modifiy the bk snapshot scripts to name the 2.6.x series snapshots as -PREy
> instead of -BKy. That way, the general population of users will see
> the -bk
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Rene Herman wrote:
>
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > I've long since decided that there's no point to making "-pre". What's the
> > difference between a "-pre" and a daily -bk snapshot? Really?
>
> The fact that not a script, but Linus Torvalds, decides that the tree is
>
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>
> It might still be worth a try, especially since so many people are
> convinced this is the way to go (your fault or not is not the point).
Making releases is actually a fair bit of work. Not the script itself, but
just deciding and trying to
> -fixup or -fixes maybe. x.y is OK too. :)
How about Service Pack?
:joke:
I could never understand why we have confused users in the naming in 2.6
serials and are trying to confuse them even more..
Hua
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of
Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 11:12:22AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Let's try with the 2.6.x.y numbering scheme, it's simple, and maybe it
ends up being sufficient. I just wanted to bring up the point that I don't
think the sucker tree _has_ to be seen as a 2.6.x.y tree at all.
Fair
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04 2005, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > I run vanilla kernels on all my boxes, workstations and
> > servers, since I don't really trust vendor kernels.
>
> That's a strange statement, I don't think you are aware of
> the level of testing that goes into
Linus Torvalds wrote:
I've long since decided that there's no point to making "-pre". What's the
difference between a "-pre" and a daily -bk snapshot? Really?
The fact that not a script, but Linus Torvalds, decides that the tree is
in a state he likes to share with others. You have been doing
Richard Purdie wrote:
Writing instructions for setting up oe to build it may be the best
option.
As it happens I was editing that exact page in the wiki t'other day:
http://openembedded.org/cgi-bin/moin.cgi/GettingStarted
I actually only wanted a toolchain but oe and scratchbox[1] seemed the
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 11:12:22AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> But automation takes time to build up and learn, and in the meantime doing
> it by hand and learning early is definitely the right thing to do. Maybe
> you doing it by hand just makes it clear that I was wrong about the need
>
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 10:59:54AM -0800, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
>
> Can/will/should it also include *required* (showstopper) build fixes,
> if there are any of those?
I think so, the ppc fix is such a thing. But not for things marked
CONFIG_BROKEN :)
thanks,
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Linus Torvalds wrote:
I've long since decided that there's no point to making "-pre". What's
the difference between a "-pre" and a daily -bk snapshot? Really?
Several non-BK developers use the first -rc1 as a merge point.
Others simply trust that _Linus_ has a lot more smarts
Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 10:27:37AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Btw, I also think that this means that the sucker-tree should never aim to
be a "2.6.x.y" kind of release tree. If we do a "2.6.x.y" release, the
sucker tree would be _included_ in that release (and it may indeed be
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 04 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > The average user has learnt "rc1 == pre1". I don't expect that it
> > > > matters much at all.
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Greg KH wrote:
>
> Ah crap, I just called the first release of such a tree, 2.6.11.1.
I don't think any of us really _know_ where we are going, and we're all
just discussing our personal ideas of what should work.
As such, I think experimentation comes into it. Dammit, I
On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 09:57 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I've long since decided that there's no point to making "-pre". What's the
> difference between a "-pre" and a daily -bk snapshot? Really?
-preX are milestones mainly for developers
When -preX is converted to -rc1 then it defines
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What I'd like to set up is the reverse. The same way the "wild" kernels
> tend to layer on top of my standard kernel, I'd like to have a lower
> level, the "anti-wild" kernel. Something that is comprised of patches
> that _everybody_ can agree on,
Or to put it more simply:
The people we want testing these kernels have been trained to expect
certain things from a Release Candidate.
These people don't have time to read LKML and understand Linus's
deviation from the norm.
Therefore, if you want them to test, follow their expectations.
As I
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 09:57:38AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I've long since decided that there's no point to making "-pre". What's
> the difference between a "-pre" and a daily -bk snapshot? Really?
>
> So when I do a release, it _is_ an -rc. The fact that people have
> trouble
On Gwe, 2005-03-04 at 18:18, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Alan, I think your problem is that you really think that the tree _I_ want
> is what _you_ want.
No I think you just misunderstood the point I was trying to make. They
are different trees and the difference is what stops you just doing the
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 10:27:37AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Btw, I also think that this means that the sucker-tree should never aim to
> be a "2.6.x.y" kind of release tree. If we do a "2.6.x.y" release, the
> sucker tree would be _included_ in that release (and it may indeed be all
> of
Russell King wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 05:33:33PM -, Richard Purdie wrote:
>
>>I'm in two minds though as generating
>>your own from openembedded isn't difficult. Writing instructions for setting
>>up oe to build it may be the best option.
>
>
> Two things - are you sure that
Linus Torvalds wrote:
I've long since decided that there's no point to making "-pre". What's the
difference between a "-pre" and a daily -bk snapshot? Really?
Several non-BK developers use the first -rc1 as a merge point.
Others simply trust that _Linus_ has a lot more smarts than an automated
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> In other words: I'm talking about scalability of development, not about
> fixing every single serious bug. I think this one will catch the
> embarrassing brown-paper-bag kinds of things, and maybe 90% of the "duh,
> we had this race forever, but
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Wednesday March 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > A Linus based odd number
> > might be closer to that if we hope on people unwittingly running them.
>
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> On Gwe, 2005-03-04 at 11:28, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > I think you're assuming that 2.6.x.y will have larger scope than is
> > intended.
>
> The examples I gave for remap_vm_area and exec are both from real world
> "gosh look I am root isn't that fun"
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 05:33:33PM -, Richard Purdie wrote:
> I'm in two minds though as generating
> your own from openembedded isn't difficult. Writing instructions for setting
> up oe to build it may be the best option.
Two things - are you sure that openembedded contains the patches to
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 04 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > The average user has learnt "rc1 == pre1". I don't expect that it
> > > matters much at all.
> >
> > The average user and lkml reader, perhaps. But I
Russell King:
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 12:40:30PM -, Richard Purdie wrote:
I've found the arm cross compiler generated from openembedded
(http://openembedded.org) to be very reliable. The big advantage in using
oe
would be that it is in active use so it is always highly likely to
generate
a
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 11:36:26AM +, Russell King wrote:
>...
> Anyway, going back to why -mm doesn't work:
>
> arch/arm/kernel/built-in.o(.init.text+0xb64): In function `$a':
> : undefined reference to `rd_size'
> make[1]: *** [.tmp_vmlinux1] Error 1
>
> So "rd_size" got deleted in -mm
> I'd love for the -mm tree to get more testing, but it doesn't.
So the question is how to hook up more "customers" for testing thing?
mm...maybe OSDL should provide special live mini-distro weekly, which
will run entirely from 256 MB USB flashdrive :)
Lot of automated testing, lot of nice and
I decided to write the following proposal after getting a headache
trying to explain the Linux versioning scheme to a friend of mine.
Only then did I find that the powers that be are talking about the same
thing. It's far from a complete âengineering standardâ but it
makes sense to me.
On Fri, Mar 04 2005, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> I run vanilla kernels on all my boxes, workstations and
> servers, since I don't really trust vendor kernels.
That's a strange statement, I don't think you are aware of
the level of testing that goes into a vendor kernel, at
least for the 'enterprise'
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 12:40:30PM -, Richard Purdie wrote:
> I've found the arm cross compiler generated from openembedded
> (http://openembedded.org) to be very reliable. The big advantage in using oe
> would be that it is in active use so it is always highly likely to generate
> a
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Gwe, 2005-03-04 at 11:28, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > I think you're assuming that 2.6.x.y will have larger scope than is
> > intended.
>
> The examples I gave for remap_vm_area and exec are both from real world
> "gosh look I am root isn't that fun" type
El Fri, 4 Mar 2005 11:06:33 +,
Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> Overall, my experience with the kernel bugzilla has been rather
> unproductive. Most bugs which came in my direction weren't for things
> I could resolve.
It's possible that there're other bug tracking systems that
Linus Torvalds wrote:
[...]
Ie I'd organize it like some of the "checkin committees" work for other
projects that have nowhere _near_ as much work going on as Linux has. That
seems to work well for small projects - and we can try to keep this
"small" exactly by having the strict rules in place
1 - 100 of 684 matches
Mail list logo
