Re: [Xen-merge] xen subarch

* Rik van Riel (riel@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Ian Pratt wrote:
> 
> > Sorry, the two trees are:
> > http://xenbits.xensource.com/linux-2.6-xen.hg          (latest stable)
> > http://xenbits.xensource.com/ext/linux-2.6-merge.hg    (bleeding edge)
> 
> Arjan pointed out a big problem with trees like this: they
> contain all changes in one big tree, while Linus prefers
> smaller, individually digestible chunks.

Sure, but this is just a tree for getting things right.  It's not
something that will feed directly to Linus necessarily.

> I wonder if it would make more sense to maintain all of
> Xenolinux as a big quilt patchset ?

That's what I was doing, but it still boiled down to a series of smaller
patches for touching common code, followed by one big hunk for the new
subarch.

> It may make Xenolinux maintenance a little bit harder, but
> it should make it a lot easier to merge things upstream.

I think we'll want to break things off and push up regardless of csets
in the hg tree.  IOW, there's not a 1:1 mapping between commits in this
tree and what's useful to breakout.

thanks,
-chris

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

<Prev in Thread]

Current Thread

[Next in Thread>

Previous by Date:

[Xen-devel] suggested event channel cleanups, King, Steven R

Next by Date:

RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH][RESEND] Add short changeset to 'xm info', Ian Pratt

Previous by Thread:

RE: [Xen-merge] xen subarch, Rik van Riel

Next by Thread:

RE: [Xen-merge] xen subarch, Ian Pratt

Indexes:

[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]