On 7 August 2017 at 21:20, Philip Prindeville <philipp_s...@redfish-solutions.com> wrote: >> On Jul 31, 2017, at 10:11 AM, John Crispin <j...@phrozen.org> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I rebased my ages old kernel patch cleanup series. It can be found here [1]. >> >> the series annotates all patches and splits them up into 3 folders >> backports/pending/hacks. > > > What’s the criteria for each? > > And isn’t “hacks” kind of self-defeating? If someone submits a PR that adds > something to “hacks”, won’t the default position be, “since this is > admittedly a hack, it’s not really needed and you should find a more > compelling fix”?
Sometimes getting upstream-acceptable solution takes months (or years), so I'm OK accepting well-described and argumented "hacks". -- Rafał _______________________________________________ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
