Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:34:04 +0100 From: Nikola Pajkovsky <n.pajkovsky@gmail.com> To: =?utf-8?Q?Jean-S=C3=A9bastien_P=C3=A9dron?= <jean-sebastien.pedron@dumbbell.fr> Cc: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Contributing to the kernel video drivers Message-ID: <87r3hocy6b.fsf@gooddata.com> In-Reply-To: <56929FB6.5090606@dumbbell.fr> (=?utf-8?Q?=22Jean-S=C3=A9bast?= =?utf-8?Q?ien_P=C3=A9dron=22's?= message of "Sun, 10 Jan 2016 19:15:18 %2B0100") References: <5681731A.5090909@FreeBSD.org> <87egdv3ga7.fsf@gooddata.com> <56929FB6.5090606@dumbbell.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jean-S=C3=A9bastien P=C3=A9dron <jean-sebastien.pedron@dumbbell.fr> writes: > On 05/01/2016 21:47, Nikola Pajkovsky wrote: >> From my point of view, moving kernel by kernel does not make sense, >> because there are too much of them. However, moving long term kernel >> by long term kernel, makes more sense to me. I can imagine, that we can >> do that file-by-file basic until last lt-kernel. > > Hmm, I didn't thought about considering longterm kernels as milestones, > that's interesting. The next longterm kernel (compared to where we are > now) is 3.10.x, the latest is 4.1.x. It feel it would still be longer > between each of our "releases" compared to one kernel at a time (ie. 3.8 > -> 3.9 -> 3.10) but with the same risks as jumping to the latest kernel. > > Furthermore, if we take eg. 3.10.94, it would include many patches > already included in later versions. 3.10.94 is probably more stable than > maybe 3.11, but it looks like we may duplicate work. Quite frankly, I don't want to jump directly to 3.10.94, but rather 3.10.0 before code freeze. After that, someone could sync to longterm 3.10.94 in stable branch, while others backporting in master branch to another milestone. Can we update during 11.x releases whole graphic stack or at least kernel part (drm + drivers)? --=20 Nikola
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?87r3hocy6b.fsf>