>>> On 10.08.11 at 16:37, Keir Fraser <keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10/08/2011 14:58, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>>>> On 10.08.11 at 15:45, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 12:40 +0100, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
>>>> Also: Shouldn't this be against upstream Linux 3.x these days, aswell,
>>>> now when both blkback and blkfront are upstream?
>>>
>>> Yes, please.
>>>
>>> Ideally we would insist that patches to those classic-Xen trees which
>>> are still somewhat maintained be sent to upstream first where applicable
>>> (i.e. only accept "backports" or classic-Xen specific bug fixes).
>>
>> Ideally yes. But that's not generally feasible, at least not always. For
>> instance, I'm glad if I can keep on top of all the things needed for our
>> kernels and hypervisors, and I would at best find time to compile test
>> code for pv-ops. But with only that I certainly shouldn't really submit
>> anything...
>
> I suspect that by now you are the only direct consumers of 2.6.18-xen. Is
> there really any benefit to keeping the public tree now? Only you commit to
> it; I expect only you directly inherit from it (others might indirectly, I
> accept). I really don't think we should be tempting anyone else to actually
> *use* it as is. Hence my conclusion we could just delete the damn thing.
Oh, and btw., in the recent history there are a couple of RedHat commits
to the tree too, so for their older RHEL(s) they might still care a little.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home