Re: [ALSA PATCH] 1.0.9b+

From: Alistair John Strachan
Date: Thu Jul 28 2005 - 17:41:02 EST

On Thursday 28 Jul 2005 18:25, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Jaroslav Kysela <perex@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Linus, please do an update from:
> >
> > rsync://
> >
> > ...
> > 65 files changed, 5059 insertions(+), 1122 deletions(-)
> The git-alsa.patch in -mm which I obtain from
> is
> empty. So we're now wanting to merge 4,000 lines of unreviewed code which
> hasn't been tested in -mm at approximately the -rc4 stage.

~2800 lines of which is a new driver.

It'd be nice if ALSA's release schedule for "stable" versus "rc" could match
the kernel's. For example, 2.6.12 shipped with 1.0.9rc2.

Maybe "rc" ALSA should only be accepted in rc1, by rc4 you hope they can wrap
things up and give you a stable version number? Okay, generally in-tree
version numbers don't count for much, but I think ALSA is a big exception
because it's maintained pretty much out of tree.

Not so much of an issue this time around, but I don't think new drivers or
rewrites (even if they are reasonably separate) should be going in a late -rc

Just my two pence.


'No sense being pessimistic, it probably wouldn't work anyway.'
Third year Computer Science undergraduate.
1F2 55 South Clerk Street, Edinburgh, UK.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at