Subject: Re: linux-next fixes

From: Randy Dunlap <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 08:09:57 -0700

On 11/01/13 02:36, Thierry Reding wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> There have been some discussions lately revolving around the topic of
> linux-next fixes. That is, commits that people come up with over the
> course of a day to fix issues found in the latest linux-next trees.
> 
> It's a fact that many people rely on linux-next for everyday work, so
> whenever things break in linux-next a lot of people end up chasing the
> same bugs and posting the same patches (or not posting them for that
> matter).
> 
> A lot of developer time is wasted that way, so I originally proposed
> that we could set up a separate linux-next-fixes tree where we collect
> patches of interest. I volunteer to do that, since, well, I'm doing it
> anyway as part of my daily routine. Timezone-wise it also fits pretty
> well, since I usually start my day sometime around when you publish
> linux-next.
> 
> If we can establish a canonical location where such fixes are
> accumulated, people could fetch those at the same time they fetch the
> linux-next tree and automatically get fixes.

Stephen has had a location for linux-next fixes for quite some time now --
in the linux-next tree itself.

Apparently Olof objected to this and you agreed with him.
and I object to not having the fixes in the linux-next tree.
Maybe Stephen can work it out.  :)

> One idea was to carry those fixes within the linux-next tree, within
> separate tags (next-YYYYMMDD-fixes). If you don't feel comfortable with
> that I suppose we could also set up a separate repository. It that case
> I think it would still make sense to run it as part of the "Linux Next
> Group" on kernel.org.
> 
> What do you think? If it's something you'd be okay with I can contact
> the administrators to have me added to the linux-next group.

-- 
~Randy