[parisc-linux] 2.4.21

[parisc-linux] 2.4.21

[Matthew Wilcox]

As some of you already know, 2.4.21 is out.  I'd've imported it myself
by now, but the 2.4 linux repo is using an _old_ scheme for managing
vendor branches.  Paul, would you be so kind as to do the honours?
I don't see any reason to hold off on merging 2.4.21 into our tree;
we can deal with any brokenness in the 2.4 tree later.

-- 
"It's not Hollywood.  War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or
victory, it is about death.  I've seen thousands and thousands of dead bodies.
Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this subject?" -- Robert Fisk

[parisc-linux] Re: 2.4.21

[Paul Bame]

On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 04:49:51PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 
> As some of you already know, 2.4.21 is out.  I'd've imported it myself
> by now, but the 2.4 linux repo is using an _old_ scheme for managing
> vendor branches.  Paul, would you be so kind as to do the honours?
> I don't see any reason to hold off on merging 2.4.21 into our tree;
> we can deal with any brokenness in the 2.4 tree later.

Hmm, bad timing, maybe Tuesday.  That ok?

	-P (currently in Moab.ut.us)

[parisc-linux] Re: 2.4.21

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 05:40:39PM -0600, Paul Bame wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 04:49:51PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > Paul, would you be so kind as to do the honours?
> > I don't see any reason to hold off on merging 2.4.21 into our tree;
> > we can deal with any brokenness in the 2.4 tree later.
> 
> Hmm, bad timing, maybe Tuesday.  That ok?

We've waited 9 months for 2.4.21, I guess we can wait another 4 days ;-)

-- 
"It's not Hollywood.  War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or
victory, it is about death.  I've seen thousands and thousands of dead bodies.
Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this subject?" -- Robert Fisk

Re: [parisc-linux] Re: 2.4.21

[Joel Soete]

Matthew Wilcox wrote:

>On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 05:40:39PM -0600, Paul Bame wrote:
>  
>
>>On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 04:49:51PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Paul, would you be so kind as to do the honours?
>>>I don't see any reason to hold off on merging 2.4.21 into our tree;
>>>we can deal with any brokenness in the 2.4 tree later.
>>>      
>>>
>>Hmm, bad timing, maybe Tuesday.  That ok?
>>    
>>
>
>We've waited 9 months for 2.4.21, I guess we can wait another 4 days ;-)
>
>  
>
Even though merge seems to me easy, if my merge patch (a diff between 
2.4.21 vanilla and my stuff) would help you, let me know. I will so try 
to prepare it on monday.

Joel

Re: [parisc-linux] Re: 2.4.21

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 03:55:47PM +0000, Joel Soete wrote:
> Even though merge seems to me easy, if my merge patch (a diff between 
> 2.4.21 vanilla and my stuff) would help you, let me know. I will so try 
> to prepare it on monday.

The merge is not the problem; importing the new upstream version into
our CVS is the problem.

Having said that, when we're done, if you want to compare with your tree,
that would be useful.

-- 
"It's not Hollywood.  War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or
victory, it is about death.  I've seen thousands and thousands of dead bodies.
Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this subject?" -- Robert Fisk

Re: [parisc-linux] Re: 2.4.21

[Joel Soete]

Matthew Wilcox wrote:

>On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 03:55:47PM +0000, Joel Soete wrote:
>  
>
>>Even though merge seems to me easy, if my merge patch (a diff between 
>>2.4.21 vanilla and my stuff) would help you, let me know. I will so try 
>>to prepare it on monday.
>>    
>>
>
>The merge is not the problem; importing the new upstream version into
>our CVS is the problem.
>
I well understand this pb ;-)
may be opportunity to test svn?

>
>Having said that, when we're done, if you want to compare with your tree,
>that would be useful.
>
>  
>
Ok I will

Joel

[parisc-linux] 2.4.22-pre1 is already out [was: Re: 2.4.21]

[Joel Soete]

Hi all,

Sorry to answer to myself.

Joel Soete wrote:

> Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 03:55:47PM +0000, Joel Soete wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> Even though merge seems to me easy, if my merge patch (a diff 
>>> between 2.4.21 vanilla and my stuff) would help you, let me know. I 
>>> will so try to prepare it on monday.
>>>   
>>
>>
>> The merge is not the problem; importing the new upstream version into
>> our CVS is the problem.
>>
> I well understand this pb ;-)
> may be opportunity to test svn?

May be not so stupid ;-) finaly: see <http://lwn.net/Articles/36336/> ?

>>
>> Having said that, when we're done, if you want to compare with your 
>> tree,
>> that would be useful.
>
And finaly why not bypass 2.4.21 and jump directly to 2.4.22? would it 
not be easiest for the merge with upstream?

Cheers,
    Joel