On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 01:06:31PM -0800, Matt Mackall wrote: > On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 12:39:23AM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > And to further test this whole -stable system, I've released 2.6.11.2. > > It contains one patch, which is already in the -bk tree, and came from > > the security team (hence the lack of the longer review cycle). > > > > It's available now in the normal kernel.org places: > > kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/patch-2.6.11.2.gz > > which is a patch against the 2.6.11.1 release. > > Argh! @*#$&!!&! > > > If consensus arrives > > that this patch should be against the 2.6.11 tree, it will be done that > > way in the future. > > Consensus arrived back when 2.6.8.1 came out.
It did? So, what was it agreed to be? Any pointers to that agreement? > Please, folks, there are automated tools that "know" about kernel > release numbering and so on. Said tools broke with 2.6.11.1 because it > wasn't in the same place that 2.6.8.1 was and now this breaks with all > precedent by being an interdiff along a branch. 2.6.11.1 is now in the proper place, sorry for any inconvience that caused. This happened yesterday. > Fixing it in the future is too #*$%* late because you've now turned it > into a special case. No, I can always respin the patch, and re-release it if it's a problem. thanks, greg k-h - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
