From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Len Brown Subject: Re: [GIT PATCH] ACPI patches for 2.6.20-rc1 Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:34:13 -0500 Message-ID: <200612222134.14054.lenb@kernel.org> References: <200612200434.56516.lenb@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:54748 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750856AbWLWCeu (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:34:50 -0500 In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 21 December 2006 02:58, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, 20 Dec 2006, Len Brown wrote: > > > > please pull from: > > Is this really all obvious bug-fixes? There seems to be a lot of > development there that simply isn't appropriate after an -rc1 any more. > > I want 2.6.20 to be stable, and one of the things I'm doing is to be > strict about the merge window. Yes, I recommend pulling this tree now. While there is a fair amount of text changed, the functional changes here are actually quite small, and have been in -mm for a long time -- some of them already shipping in distros before being upstream. Yes, there is a fair amount of fluffy cleanup here -- seems there is never a good time in the release cycle to do them, but as andrew says, we're in this for the long term, so we do have to do them some time. I don't see any big risks in them so it seems appropriate to push after rc1. Note that there is a much larger body of ACPI changes in flight that I have excluded from this pull request and are waiting for 2.6.21. thanks, -Len