From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: Request for linux-next inclusion of the voyager tree Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:23:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <1244477423.4079.228.camel@mulgrave.site> <20090609202130.GA5291@elte.hu> <20090610004126.491508c9@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20090609235647.GE23846@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:57426 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756766AbZFJPXx (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:23:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Ingo Molnar , Alan Cox , James Bottomley , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andrew Morton , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > Alan is definitely right that we're likely to see more of the "non-PC" > > platforms as x86 tries to do embedded. > > I agree, but the way voyager is done is _not_ a good example for the > embedded x86 folks who will probably start to send in their scoop in > the foreseable future. > > I'm not fundamentally against bringing Voyager back, but it needs to > go through a useful patch submission and review process and not by > forcing voyager wreckage into our code base. Ok, thanks. This was exactly the kind of thing I wanted to hear. It does sound like the Voyager tree is doing things I myself wouldn't approve of as a maintainer, so I can't really say that I'm upset by the x86 maintainers then not pulling it. Linus