Re: Linux 2.6.11.1

Greg KH
2005-03-06T05:08:48Z

On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 02:53:43AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> 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 ?

No it would not be, and should be the way this works.

thanks,

greg k-h