On 11/3/2016 9:33 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Ville Syrjälä > <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com> wrote: >>> If you still think you should send this revert, I am removing my NACK. >>> Pls Go ahead. >> The other option is to not revert and instead slap a fix on top. But >> that would have to be done reasonably quickly so that the thing is >> ready in time for 4.10. We're closing in on 4.9-rc4 now so I guess >> we should still have a few weeks to fix things up. Whether that's >> enough I don't know. If not, then we should revert. > 1 week and then revert is the guideline. Please don't bend the rules > for regressions all the time, it makes things painful for everyone > else. > -Daniel I don't remember breaking it for first time itself. As I mentioned in the other thread, please add the regression details. After that, revert it if you want (I saw you have already given maintainers-ack)
Regards Shashank
