RE: [Xen-devel] Re: 3.0-testing

["Ian Pratt" <m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Since the semantics of the tree is a bit different from 
> 2.0-testing might it make sense to use a different name, e.g. pre-3.0?

Not so different. Changing tree names is actually a pain in the butt, so
I think 3.0-testing is actually OK. We will then fork 3.0 from it when
we're ready for a release (and tag it 3.0.0), and 3.0-testing will be
strictly bug fixes only. 

We're not intending to do any checkins to -unstable until 3.0 is
released. In fact, we might start off soft linking the -unstable repo to
-3.0-testing.
 
> Also, will the 3.0-testing tree be appropriate to roll in 
> common-izing changes (i.e. abstracting out x86-isms) in 
> drivers and xc?  These should be low risk to x86_* as they 
> will simply be syntactic, e.g. moving inline code into macros 
> or separate functions.  If so, I'd like to arrange some time 
> to work on this at OLS?

I'd have rather hoped stuff like this would have already been discussed
and posted :-(

Anyhow, we can try and find time to discuss this at OLS with both you
and Jimi, Hollis et al. 


Ian

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel