bitkeeper tree for kjt patchset?
What do you think of a bk repository for kjt? I did a search and i didn't see anything related with this topic, am i missing something ?
Reading all recent -mm announces we see that Andrew is merging acpi, agpgart, arm, cifs and others bk trees. I think that he can merge bk-kjt too and we'll see more testing of these patches posted at this list.
Actually, the kjt 'release process' is post the patchset to lkml when kjt maintainer feels that it's ok, no? IMO, it can be done the same way but asking for Andrew merge bk-kjt before release -mm kernels adding there (bk-kjt) only reviewed patches posted at this list. Comments?
If you think that it's a good idea and there's no server to setup it (and i guess that bkbits won't be a problem), i can host it atm.
Hope that helps,
Gustavo Franco -- <[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors
Quoted 2 lines · Gustavo Franco
What do you think of a bk repository for kjt? I did a search and i didn't see anything related with this topic, am i missing something ?
IMO the maintainer should use whatever s/he feels is the best tool for the job, whichever it is.
Quoted 3 lines
Reading all recent -mm announces we see that Andrew is merging acpi, agpgart, arm, cifs and others bk trees. I think that he can merge bk-kjt too and we'll see more testing of these patches posted at this list.
Andrew can and will merge non-bk patchsets also (such as those made with quilt or (his) patch-scripts), but he considers KJ patchsets too risky IIRC. I may or may not be able to find the email on that subject/discussion. You or someone can ask him again, of course.
Quoted 7 lines
Actually, the kjt 'release process' is post the patchset to lkml when kjt maintainer feels that it's ok, no? IMO, it can be done the same way but asking for Andrew merge bk-kjt before release -mm kernels adding there (bk-kjt) only reviewed patches posted at this list. Comments?
If you think that it's a good idea and there's no server to setup it (and i guess that bkbits won't be a problem), i can host it atm.
Please keep in mind that patchsets should still be available as a tarball (IMO of course, but when Linus started using BK, it was with the understanding that no one is _required_ to use BK, that there would be alternative methods of getting the source). So if cloning a KJ BK tree was required, I would never do it. I just want tarballs -- which doesn't prevent the use of BK by the KJ maintainer.
Signature · 5 lines
~Randy _______________________________________________ Kernel-janitors mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors
Quoted 2 lines · Gustavo Franco
What do you think of a bk repository for kjt? I did a search and i didn't see anything related with this topic, am i missing something ?
For the kind of patches in -kj, a BK tree wouldn't be a great idea. It's the wrong usage model for janitor patches.
Signature · 6 lines
"Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." -- Mark Twain
_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors
Quoted 3 lines · Gustavo Franco
What do you think of a bk repository for kjt? I did a search and i didn't see anything related with this topic, am i missing something ?
it's up to the maintainer to choose it's tool.
i prefer free tools, afair randy too.
Quoted 4 lines
Actually, the kjt 'release process' is post the patchset to lkml when kjt maintainer feels that it's ok, no? IMO, it can be done the same way but asking for Andrew merge bk-kjt before release -mm kernels adding there (bk-kjt) only reviewed patches posted at this list. Comments?
no the "release process" of kj is to go through maintainers, and letting them test and merge the patches.
so taking the load of the submitters.
best regards
--
maks
_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors
Quoted 10 lines · Matthew Wilcox
Quoted 2 lines · Gustavo Franco
What do you think of a bk repository for kjt? I did a search and i didn't see anything related with this topic, am i missing something ?
For the kind of patches in -kj, a BK tree wouldn't be a great idea. It's the wrong usage model for janitor patches.
Hi ppl,
i agree that BK ist not the way to go since KJ patches are more random, and will later go to other maintainer of drivers/subsystems like that (IMHO).
But i agree with Gustavo that submitters need a better overview what is going on. in a way that would allow to maintains to tkae notice of changes (no idea who that can be done)
re,
walter
_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors