Re: [stable] [patch 00/21] 2.6.19-stable review

2007-02-28 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 05:28:27AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> What are the rules that are supposed to govern backports to stable >> trees these days anyway? > > Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt Ok if that is really what we are going with,

Re: [stable] [patch 00/21] 2.6.19-stable review

2007-02-28 Thread Greg KH
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 05:28:27AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > What are the rules that are supposed to govern backports to stable > trees these days anyway? Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt thanks, greg k-h - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel"

Re: [stable] [patch 00/21] 2.6.19-stable review

2007-02-28 Thread Greg KH
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 05:28:27AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: What are the rules that are supposed to govern backports to stable trees these days anyway? Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt thanks, greg k-h - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in

Re: [stable] [patch 00/21] 2.6.19-stable review

2007-02-28 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 05:28:27AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: What are the rules that are supposed to govern backports to stable trees these days anyway? Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt Ok if that is really what we are going with, the this