Re: Linux 2.6.16.30-pre1

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>]

On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 10:17:53AM +0000, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > > Adrian, when you have a doubt whether such a fix should go into next
> > > release, simply tell people about the problem and ask them to test
> > > current driver. If nobody encounters the problem, you can safely keep
> > > the patch in your fridge until someone complains. By that time, the
> > > risks associated with this patch will be better known.
> > 
> > It's not that I wanted to upgrade ACPI to the latest version.
> > 
> > And my rules are:
> > - patch must be in Linus' tree
> > - I'm asking the patch authors and maintainers of the affected subsystem
> >   whether the patch is OK for 2.6.16
> 
> I thought stable rules were longer than this... including 'patch must
> be < 100 lines' and 'must be bugfix for serious bug'. Changing rules
> for -stable series in the middle of it seems like a bad idea...

I stated what I'd do with 2.6.16 before I took over maintainance.

> Maybe you can keep -ab with relaxed rules and -stable with original
> rules?

Much would be possible under the assumption I had unlimited time...

> 							Pavel

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed