Adam Majer wrote: > Herbert Poetzl wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:35:16PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote: >>> Or at least people send patches and commits to it instead of that >>> kernel-diff-monster! >> >> is that a nickname for me? :) > > GIT allows for tracking of changes so you don't need to do much work do > view changes to some file between two different versions of the kernel. IMHO this is harder to do with git than plain old kernel trees... > GIT is also used by the kernel developers. > >> huh? why do you think that development stalled in >> Linux-VServer? (or what do you mean by vserver?) >> note: the changes in 2.6.24-2.6.26 (caused by the >> partial adoption of OS-Level virtualization and related >> breakage) requires major changes to certain parts of >> Linux-VServer, which in turn require a lot of testing >> before we will flag it 'Stable' ... >> >> as for recent development, go and get the experimental >> version (currently 2.3.0.35-pre5) and let us know how >> it works for you (and/or what issues you have) >> > > I'm only looking at http://linux-vserver.org and well, it looks stalled. > > Grsecurity and PaX are in kind of same boat as vserver. Out of tree > patches that are not necessarily stalled, but there is very little > *visible* work being done on them. > >>> Now, regarding actual work on stuff. Adrian Bunk has been maintaining >>> the 2.6.16.x kernel tree and will continue to maintain it for a bit. >>> Is it feasible to backport vs.2.2 branch back to that stable tree? >> >> sure, but that's definitely something I won't spend time >> on, unless it is well payed ... > > That is quite understandable. > > Anyway, do we have the location of the current patches, test patches, > etc. for the 2.2 and 2.3 versions aside the links from > http://linux-vserver.org ? > > Is http://vserver.13thfloor.at/Experimental the "official" development area? Always has been. -- Daniel Hokka Zakrisson