Re: Linux 2.6.11.1

Dave Jones
2005-03-05T07:54:26Z

On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 04:28:02PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Greg KH wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 02:36:14PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > But we end up with a cset in the permanent kernel history which simply
> > > should not have been there.
> >
> > Is this really a big deal?
>
> Once? No. If it ends up being "par for the course", it's bad.

The amount of stuff in the sucker tree shouldn't really amount
to /that/ many patches should it ? If it does, then 2.6.x is in
worse shape than we've all been admitting.

Would it be that much work to just send the 'meat' as gnu patches,
and leave the not-for-linus stuff alone ?

Dave