Gene Heskett wrote:
Somewhat Greg, it caught me out. OTOH, once we know that .2 needs .1, we'll be ok. And it does give a quick method for us frogs to define if one of them is a regression. The only thing that should break if we leave one out of the squence is the EXTRAVERSION path in the Makefile & we can certainly fix that easily enough for testing.
2nd that, I'm so delighted to have -stable that I will happily accept patches of what ever type you find easiest to produce, in this case sequential incrementals. Just don't screw the process by changing it, we can cope! Anyone who can't figure out how to generate the single big diff against mainline shouldn't be patching kernels ;-)
Question? Is it a given that these, if they don't have warts, will be in mainline 2.6.12?
I think Linus noted his intention to grab the fixes he likes. That's not a determanent process by any means ;-)
-- -bill davidsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me - 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/
