kernel patch/repository status

Sven Rebhan odinshorse at
Thu Mar 26 18:02:03 CET 2009

2009/3/26 Werner Almesberger <werner at>:
> Sven Rebhan wrote:
>> However, I would like to ask you to create a new stable branch,
>> tracking 2.6.29.y releases + openmoko patches until 2.6.30 is out.
> Hmm, how would that "stable" branch differ from what I've outlined ?

If I got you right, you want to track the linus/rmk/ben/whatsoever
development branch. That's fine for development, but most users don't
like the buggy -rc (or even inter -rc) states. For them, a second
branch should track upstream 2.6.29.y stable releases and we should
backport important changes to that branch. This would give them the
opportunity to get importent Openmoko fixes while not fighting with
unstable upstream -rc bugs.

> I think the main question for selecting the ideal point is how
> closely we have to exchange changes with that upstream branch (both
> ways) and how much they get modified on their way to Linus.

As I think we have to submit most of the stuff to linux-arm, we should
track this branch. The changes we (who else should do them if the code
is not upstream) make during the review process should be made in
tracking tree. This way we keep in sync with upstream (at least for
our stuff), don't we?


P.S.: Btw. good to see Openmoko kernel development rolling again... :-)

More information about the openmoko-kernel mailing list