Re: 2.6.x.y gatekeeper discipline

From: Randy.Dunlap
Date: Wed Mar 09 2005 - 16:50:04 EST

DHollenbeck wrote:
I had hoped that the proper discipline in rejecting non-critical patches would have pertained. I remain unconvinced that the .y releases are anything but noise that should have been kept elsewhere. After reading through a patch summary, I see this as typical:


ChangeSet 2005/02/22 20:56:28-05:00, bunk @


[PATCH] drivers/net/via-rhine.c: make a variable static const

This patch makes a needlessly global variable static const.

Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>


It's possible I simply don't get it, but the above description of a patch hardly seems like it would qualify for the intentions of the 2.6.x.y series.

Is this typical, and is this in line with the intent of the x.y series?

If this is going to achieve the objective, the gatekeeper has to be a real stubborn, unpopular horse's ass it seems, with a sign on his forehead that reads: GO AWAY AND COME ANOTHER DAY!

Somewhat disappointedly,

Are you looking at 2.6.x.y patches? I don't think so......

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