On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Felipe Contreras
<felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> A revert is the same as a patch. It needs to be in Linus's tree before
>> I can add it to the stable releases.
>
> Right, because otherwise people's systems would actually work.
There are rules for a damn good reason.
The rule for -stable is that the changes *have* to be in upstream, for
a very simple reason: otherwise bugs get re-introduced.
If -stable starts revertign things that aren't reverted up-stream,
what do you think happens to the *next* kernel version?
We have those -stable rules for a very good reason - we used to not
have them, and the above "oops, we fixed it in stable, but the fix
never made it upstream" happened *all*the*time*.
I don't think you realize how well kernel development has worked over
the last few years. And the stable rules are part of it.
So stop complaining. Reverts really *are* just patches, Greg is 100%
right, and you are simply wrong.
And the revert is now apparently in John's tree, and will make it to
David and then me shortly. It will get reverted in stable too once
that happens. In the meantime, your complaints are to Greg only shows
that you don't understand why the rules exist, and the fact that you
*continue* to complain just makes you look stupid.
Linus
_______________________________________________
ath9k-devel mailing list
ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
