Re: Why is the new patch against 2.4.20-pre3 and not 2.4.1 9?

["VALETTE Eric" <valette-9L3uxOwa2HHHNWWW6QW1Ag@public.gmane.org>]

Grover, Andrew wrote:
>>From: VALETTE Eric [mailto:valette-9L3uxOwa2HHHNWWW6QW1Ag@public.gmane.org] 
>>I've tried to apply it on 2.4.19, it fails. I've tried on 
>>2.4.20-pre4 it 
>>also fails :-(. So I have to stick with 2.4.20-pre3 which is known to 
>>cause some hangup on boot (see Marcello comment for pre4).



>>Can we have some light of why 20-pre3 instead of 19? Or is it just 
>>cahotic because of the temperature and beverage?
> 
> 
> Because that's what I originally merged against, and I didn't want to
> remerge against .19.

That is rather not a sound answer. Why did you choose to merge with 
2.4.10-pre3 instead of 2.4.19? I apply other patches to kernel that may 
well conflict with other pre series and I'm not alone. Most of *normal* 
people make patches only for official stable kernels (e.g ntfs, kdbg, 
packet writing for UDF). Again I think this is just a lack of methodlogy 
  (like non usage of acessible bug tracking system...).




-- 
    __
   /  `                          Eric Valette - Canon CRF
  /--   __  o _.                 Product Dev. Group Software Team Leader
(___, / (_(_(__                 Rue de la touche lambert
                                 35517 Cesson-Sevigne  Cedex
                                 FRANCE
Tel: +33 (0)2 99 87 68 91       Fax: +33 (0)2 99 84 11 30
E-mail: valette-9L3uxOwa2HHHNWWW6QW1Ag@public.gmane.org    http://www.crf.canon.fr



-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: OSDN - Tired of that same old
cell phone?  Get a new here for FREE!
https://www.inphonic.com/r.asp?r=sourceforge1&refcode1=vs3390