From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: Inclusion inquiry about remaining patches Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 15:57:51 +0100 Message-ID: <4B853E6F.2060709@trash.net> References: <4B851E88.1010906@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Netfilter Developer Mailing List To: Jan Engelhardt Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:45280 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755766Ab0BXO5x (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:57:53 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Wednesday 2010-02-24 13:41, Patrick McHardy wrote: >>> there are about 70 patches left that I intended to submit, but it seems >>> Netfilter stagnated again this release. Is there still a chance for >>> inclusion in this round? >> Well, the last batch didn't exactly fill me with confidence that >> these patches have been sufficiently tested. >> >> I'll consider the cleanup batch if you can assure me that it >> doesn't contain bugs similar to the "lost POSTROUTING chain" >> problem contained in the last series that should have been >> noticed with just some basic testing. > > They have had their testing, and the error had been caught too > by Changli merely by reading the patch: > > http://marc.info/?l=netfilter-devel&m=125732159605634&w=2 > http://marc.info/?l=netfilter-devel&m=125733769630550&w=2 > > I still have blob 685400 in my working copy, though it seems unreachable > at this time, which means it sometime got lost in a rebase. OK fair enough, I'll have another look once I'm finished with my current work.