Re: Linux 2.6.11.2

[Bill Davidsen]

Gene Heskett wrote:

> Somewhat Greg, it caught me out.  OTOH, once we know that .2 needs .1, 
> we'll be ok.  And it does give a quick method for us frogs to define 
> if one of them is a regression.  The only thing that should break if 
> we leave one out of the squence is the EXTRAVERSION path in the 
> Makefile & we can certainly fix that easily enough for testing.

2nd that, I'm so delighted to have -stable that I will happily accept 
patches of what ever type you find easiest to produce, in this case 
sequential incrementals. Just don't screw the process by changing it, we 
can cope! Anyone who can't figure out how to generate the single big 
diff against mainline shouldn't be patching kernels ;-)
> Question?  Is it a given that these, if they don't have warts, will be 
> in mainline 2.6.12?

I think Linus noted his intention to grab the fixes he likes. That's not 
a determanent process by any means ;-)


--
   -bill davidsen (davidsen@xxxxxxx)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
 last possible moment - but no longer"  -me
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/