From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Eugene Surovegin <ebs@ebshome.net>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
Song Sam <samlinuxppc@yahoo.com.cn>,
"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com>,
Embedded Linux PPC list <linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org>
Subject: Re: 2.4 versus 2.6 patches
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 01:17:52 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1090883872.20889.11.camel@thomas.tec.linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040726163054.GA8872@gate.ebshome.net>
On Mon, 2004-07-26 at 18:30, Eugene Surovegin wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 10:27:52AM -0400, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > Because nobody's really that interested in it. For what it's worth, I've
> > abandoned all pretence of continuing to support 2.4 in the MTD/JFFS2 CVS
> > tree.
>
> This is quite sad, but not all maintainers do the same. IIRC networking fixes
> are still backported to 2.4.
Maybe not all maintainers suffer from continous lack of collaboration
and community feedback.
> Hopefully, I can maintain this stuff myself and backport fixes (what I already
> did for some MTD stuff, btw).
Cool (where are the patches, btw ???).
We would certainly be happy to keep a 2.4 branch of MTD alive if there
would be any noticable support available instead of whinging about the
brokenness of the MTD CVS.
But we certainly do not get any further, when people have patches around
and complain why we have not included them into MTD CVS by magic
awareness of the solution.
tglx
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-07-26 23:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-07-23 14:57 2.4 versus 2.6 patches Robert P. J. Day
2004-07-24 15:20 ` David Woodhouse
2004-07-26 2:50 ` Song Sam
2004-07-26 4:13 ` David Woodhouse
2004-07-26 4:40 ` Eugene Surovegin
2004-07-26 13:48 ` Song Sam
2004-07-26 14:27 ` David Woodhouse
2004-07-26 15:08 ` Mark Chambers
2004-07-26 15:53 ` Robert P. J. Day
2004-07-26 16:30 ` Eugene Surovegin
2004-07-26 23:17 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2004-07-26 23:49 ` Eugene Surovegin
2004-07-27 0:25 ` Thomas Gleixner
2004-07-29 19:30 ` David Woodhouse
2004-07-26 17:16 ` Wolfgang Denk
2004-08-09 15:03 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2004-07-27 3:13 ` Song Sam
2004-08-09 13:28 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2004-08-10 5:58 ` Song Sam
2004-08-10 11:54 ` Marcelo Tosatti
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-07-26 16:48 Demke, Torsten
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1090883872.20889.11.camel@thomas.tec.linutronix.de \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=ebs@ebshome.net \
--cc=linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org \
--cc=rpjday@mindspring.com \
--cc=samlinuxppc@yahoo.com.cn \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).