mail archive opensuse-kernel.opensuse.org
(List home) (Recent threads) (97 other OpenSUSE lists)
Subscription Options
- RSS or Atom: Read-only subscription using a browser or aggregator. This is the recommended way if you don't need to send messages to the list. You can learn more about feed syndication and clients here.
- Conventional: All messages are delivered to your mail address, and you can reply. To subscribe, send an email to the list's subscribe address with "subscribe" in the subject line, or visit the list's homepage here.
- Low traffic list: less than 3 messages per day
- This list contains about 4,662 messages, beginning Aug 2007
- 2 messages added yesterday
Report the Spam
This button sends a spam report to the moderator. Please use it sparingly. For other removal requests, read this.
Are you sure? yes no
openSUSE-12.2 branch
Ad
Hi all -
With openSUSE 12.2 Beta having been released, it's time to branch off
to let it stabilize while the master branch moves forward to 3.5.
I've created the openSUSE-12.2 branch and added the packages to OBS,
but syncing isn't configured yet so they'll be stale for a short while
(HEAD will still be up-to-date).
Michal, when you get a chance can you set up the syncing to OBS?
- -Jeff
On 9.6.2012 00:07, Jeff Mahoney wrote:>
> Hi all -
>
> With openSUSE 12.2 Beta having been released, it's time to branch off
> to let it stabilize while the master branch moves forward to 3.5.
>
> I've created the openSUSE-12.2 branch and added the packages to OBS,
> but syncing isn't configured yet so they'll be stale for a short while
> (HEAD will still be up-to-date).
>
> Michal, when you get a chance can you set up the syncing to OBS?Done.
Michal
On 06/11/2012 08:23 AM, Michal Marek wrote: > On 9.6.2012 00:07, Jeff Mahoney wrote:>> >> Hi all - >> >> With openSUSE 12.2 Beta having been released, it's time to branch >> off to let it stabilize while the master branch moves forward to >> 3.5. >> >> I've created the openSUSE-12.2 branch and added the packages to >> OBS, but syncing isn't configured yet so they'll be stale for a >> short while (HEAD will still be up-to-date). >> >> Michal, when you get a chance can you set up the syncing to OBS? > > Done. > > MichalThanks. BTW, I've pushed my 3.5-rc2 work as the merge-3.5 branch. Xen and ARM still need updating. A related proposal: I'm not actively involved in Tumbleweed but I know people are using it. We see bug reports against e.g. Linux 3.3 that only Tumbleweed uses. The current process is to just push master along every time there's a new upstream kernel revision. Would the people behind Tumbleweed benefit if, instead, I branch the last commit before I rev to 3.6 as "Tumbleweed-3.5" or something? - -Jeff
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 02:10:39PM -0400, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> On 06/11/2012 08:23 AM, Michal Marek wrote:
> > On 9.6.2012 00:07, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> > >>
> >> Hi all -
> >>
> >> With openSUSE 12.2 Beta having been released, it's time to branch
> >> off to let it stabilize while the master branch moves forward to
> >> 3.5.
> >>
> >> I've created the openSUSE-12.2 branch and added the packages to
> >> OBS, but syncing isn't configured yet so they'll be stale for a
> >> short while (HEAD will still be up-to-date).
> >>
> >> Michal, when you get a chance can you set up the syncing to OBS?
> >
> > Done.
> >
> > Michal
>
> Thanks.
>
> BTW, I've pushed my 3.5-rc2 work as the merge-3.5 branch.
>
> Xen and ARM still need updating.
>
> A related proposal: I'm not actively involved in Tumbleweed but I know
> people are using it. We see bug reports against e.g. Linux 3.3 that
> only Tumbleweed uses. The current process is to just push master along
> every time there's a new upstream kernel revision. Would the people
> behind Tumbleweed benefit if, instead, I branch the last commit before
> I rev to 3.6 as "Tumbleweed-3.5" or something?I'm following the kernel:stable/ tree for the kernel to put into
Tumbleweed, so that's up to you and whom ever is maintaining that repo :)
But I do think I should wait for 12.2 to come out before moving the
Tumblweed kernel to 3.6, but given the proposed release dates, that
shouldn't be a problem, right?
thanks,
greg k-h
On 06/11/2012 02:22 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 02:10:39PM -0400, Jeff Mahoney wrote: >> On 06/11/2012 08:23 AM, Michal Marek wrote: >>> On 9.6.2012 00:07, Jeff Mahoney wrote:>>>> >>>> Hi all - >>>> >>>> With openSUSE 12.2 Beta having been released, it's time to >>>> branch off to let it stabilize while the master branch moves >>>> forward to 3.5. >>>> >>>> I've created the openSUSE-12.2 branch and added the packages >>>> to OBS, but syncing isn't configured yet so they'll be stale >>>> for a short while (HEAD will still be up-to-date). >>>> >>>> Michal, when you get a chance can you set up the syncing to >>>> OBS? >>> >>> Done. >>> >>> Michal >> >> Thanks. >> >> BTW, I've pushed my 3.5-rc2 work as the merge-3.5 branch. >> >> Xen and ARM still need updating. >> >> A related proposal: I'm not actively involved in Tumbleweed but I >> know people are using it. We see bug reports against e.g. Linux >> 3.3 that only Tumbleweed uses. The current process is to just >> push master along every time there's a new upstream kernel >> revision. Would the people behind Tumbleweed benefit if, instead, >> I branch the last commit before I rev to 3.6 as "Tumbleweed-3.5" >> or something? > > I'm following the kernel:stable/ tree for the kernel to put into > Tumbleweed, so that's up to you and whom ever is maintaining that > repo :)Ok, I think that might be Jiri Slaby's playground.> But I do think I should wait for 12.2 to come out before moving > the Tumblweed kernel to 3.6, but given the proposed release dates, > that shouldn't be a problem, right?No. I'm expecting 12.2 to come out before 3.6 is released anyway. - -Jeff
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Jeff Mahoney wrote:>
> On 06/11/2012 02:22 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 02:10:39PM -0400, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
>>> On 06/11/2012 08:23 AM, Michal Marek wrote:
>>>> On 9.6.2012 00:07, Jeff Mahoney wrote:>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all -
>>>>>
>>>>> With openSUSE 12.2 Beta having been released, it's time to
>>>>> branch off to let it stabilize while the master branch moves
>>>>> forward to 3.5.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've created the openSUSE-12.2 branch and added the packages
>>>>> to OBS, but syncing isn't configured yet so they'll be stale
>>>>> for a short while (HEAD will still be up-to-date).
>>>>>
>>>>> Michal, when you get a chance can you set up the syncing to
>>>>> OBS?
>>>>
>>>> Done.
>>>>
>>>> Michal
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> BTW, I've pushed my 3.5-rc2 work as the merge-3.5 branch.
>>>
>>> Xen and ARM still need updating.
>>>
>>> A related proposal: I'm not actively involved in Tumbleweed but I
>>> know people are using it. We see bug reports against e.g. Linux
>>> 3.3 that only Tumbleweed uses. The current process is to just
>>> push master along every time there's a new upstream kernel
>>> revision. Would the people behind Tumbleweed benefit if, instead,
>>> I branch the last commit before I rev to 3.6 as "Tumbleweed-3.5"
>>> or something?
>>
>> I'm following the kernel:stable/ tree for the kernel to put into
>> Tumbleweed, so that's up to you and whom ever is maintaining that
>> repo :)
>
> Ok, I think that might be Jiri Slaby's playground.
>
>> But I do think I should wait for 12.2 to come out before moving
>> the Tumblweed kernel to 3.6, but given the proposed release dates,
>> that shouldn't be a problem, right?
>
> No. I'm expecting 12.2 to come out before 3.6 is released anyway.
>
> - -JeffFYI: Coolo said in the last couple days he may need to push 12.2 back
to Sept. (or later?) due to excessive current issues in factory. Thus
3.6 may just come first.
On 12.06.2012 01:11, Greg Freemyer wrote:
> FYI: Coolo said in the last couple days he may need to push 12.2 back
> to Sept. (or later?) due to excessive current issues in factory. Thus
> 3.6 may just come first.This is exactly the kind of thinking that led to the current issues in
factory. If 12.2 is pushed back, it will be frozen.
Greetings, Stephan
On 06/11/2012 08:10 PM, Jeff Mahoney wrote: > A related proposal: I'm not actively involved in Tumbleweed but I > know people are using it. We see bug reports against e.g. Linux 3.3 > that only Tumbleweed uses. The current process is to just push > master along every time there's a new upstream kernel revision. > Would the people behind Tumbleweed benefit if, instead, I branch > the last commit before I rev to 3.6 as "Tumbleweed-3.5" or > something?Yeah, I would appreciate that. Otherwise I have to find that manually. But I would call it stable-3.5 or last-3.5... But it doesn't matter. thanks,
On 06/12/2012 04:57 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 11.06.12 at 20:10, Jeff Mahoney wrote: >> BTW, I've pushed my 3.5-rc2 work as the merge-3.5 branch. > > With 12.2 branched off already, is there a reason for not putting > this directly into master?I wanted to try getting everything updated in a separate branch before pulling into master this time. - -Jeff
On 06/12/2012 11:33 AM, Jeff Mahoney wrote: > On 06/12/2012 04:57 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 11.06.12 at 20:10, Jeff Mahoney wrote: >>> BTW, I've pushed my 3.5-rc2 work as the merge-3.5 branch. > >> With 12.2 branched off already, is there a reason for not putting >> this directly into master? > > I wanted to try getting everything updated in a separate branch > before pulling into master this time.Or that was the plan, at least. People keep adding stuff into master anyway, so all it's doing is creating more work. - -Jeff
Message missing here (more information)
On 06/18/2012 03:15 PM, Andrew Wafaa wrote: > Do the ARM configs still need rebasing? Sorry if they do, I've been > tied up with the new job but will have some spare cycles as of > Wednesday. >Yes, they will. I didn't touch the ARM configs. - -Jeff> Regards, > > Andy > > -- Sorry for top posting Andrew Wafaa IRC: FunkyPenguin GPG: > 0x3A36312F > > On Jun 18, 2012 7:45 PM, "Jeff Mahoney" > > wrote: > > On 06/12/2012 11:33 AM, Jeff Mahoney wrote: >> On 06/12/2012 04:57 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 11.06.12 at 20:10, Jeff Mahoney > > wrote: >>>> BTW, I've pushed my 3.5-rc2 work as the merge-3.5 branch. > >>> With 12.2 branched off already, is there a reason for not >>> putting this directly into master? > >> I wanted to try getting everything updated in a separate branch >> before pulling into master this time. > > Or that was the plan, at least. People keep adding stuff into > master anyway, so all it's doing is creating more work. > > -Jeff > >
On 18 June 2012 20:17, Jeff Mahoney wrote:> > On 06/18/2012 03:15 PM, Andrew Wafaa wrote: >> Do the ARM configs still need rebasing? Sorry if they do, I've been >> tied up with the new job but will have some spare cycles as of >> Wednesday. >> > > Yes, they will. I didn't touch the ARM configs. > > - -Jeff >OK I'm somewhat confused here - sorry. I've done a fresh git checkout to rebase the configs against 3.5, yet when I run make oldconfig it tells me it is doing it against 3.4. Any ideas on what N00b mistake I'm making? At the minute the only config it actually does anything against is the Cubox which is the newest one and the disclaimer header says 3.5rc2 yet if I edit it it changes to 3.4.0. Thanks, Andy
On 06/19/2012 03:56 AM, Andrew Wafaa wrote: > On 18 June 2012 20:17, Jeff Mahoney wrote:>> >> On 06/18/2012 03:15 PM, Andrew Wafaa wrote: >>> Do the ARM configs still need rebasing? Sorry if they do, I've >>> been tied up with the new job but will have some spare cycles >>> as of Wednesday. >>> >> >> Yes, they will. I didn't touch the ARM configs. >> >> - -Jeff >> > OK I'm somewhat confused here - sorry. I've done a fresh git > checkout to rebase the configs against 3.5, yet when I run make > oldconfig it tells me it is doing it against 3.4. Any ideas on what > N00b mistake I'm making? At the minute the only config it actually > does anything against is the Cubox which is the newest one and the > disclaimer header says 3.5rc2 yet if I edit it it changes to > 3.4.0.Which branch? Master should be 3.5-rc3; openSUSE-12.2 should be 3.4.2. - -Jeff
Ad