Subject: Re: the path from nathanw_sa -> newlock2
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Pavel Cahyna <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/15/2007 23:08:33
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 01:24:52PM -0800, Bucky Katz wrote:
> I could be wrong. I was thinking of how much change happened since the
> original 4.0 branch and not the rebranch.
> But as you can see from the above it's not just OMAP stuff. We've
> tracked changes to the filesystem interfaces for example that I
> believe aren't in 4.0 but are in -current.
FYI the filesystem interface in 4.0 is going to change as it did in
-current (the locking changes):
> We've been working in -current for over a year. If I recall correctly,
> the original 4.0 branch was in November. Maybe the rebranch would make
> it easier. Not removing m:n uniprocessor support would make it moot.
The rebranch was in December.
> But the other aspect of our staying in -current was my (possiblly
> incorrect) understanding that if we submitted new bits, such as the
> USB device subsystem, they'd go in current and not a stable branch.
Yes, new bits go to current.