On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 11:49:10AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 11:34:22AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:07:45 -0800 Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 10:13:42AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 13 Feb 2008,
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 11:34:22AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:07:45 -0800 Greg KH wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 10:13:42AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > >
> > > > MAINTAINERS is the most frequently
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:07:45 -0800 Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 10:13:42AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Joe Perches wrote:
> > >
> > > MAINTAINERS is the most frequently patched file
> >
> > Almost all of them merge perfectly, with no problems
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 10:13:42AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Joe Perches wrote:
> >
> > MAINTAINERS is the most frequently patched file
>
> Almost all of them merge perfectly, with no problems what-so-ever. And the
> merge conflicts, when they happen, are
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 10:13:42AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Joe Perches wrote:
MAINTAINERS is the most frequently patched file
Almost all of them merge perfectly, with no problems what-so-ever. And the
merge conflicts, when they happen, are generally really
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:07:45 -0800 Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 10:13:42AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Joe Perches wrote:
MAINTAINERS is the most frequently patched file
Almost all of them merge perfectly, with no problems what-so-ever. And the
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 11:34:22AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:07:45 -0800 Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 10:13:42AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Joe Perches wrote:
MAINTAINERS is the most frequently patched file
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 11:49:10AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 11:34:22AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:07:45 -0800 Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 10:13:42AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Joe Perches wrote:
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>> So in that sense, I think both MAINTAINERS and the deprecation schedule
>> are totally uninteresting. Yes, they have merge conflicts. But those merge
>> conflicts are really really easy to handle.
>
>
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:13:42 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Joe Perches wrote:
> >
> > MAINTAINERS is the most frequently patched file
>
> Almost all of them merge perfectly, with no problems what-so-ever. And the
> merge conflicts, when they
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> So in that sense, I think both MAINTAINERS and the deprecation schedule
> are totally uninteresting. Yes, they have merge conflicts. But those merge
> conflicts are really really easy to handle.
That, btw, includes "automatic merges" for
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Joe Perches wrote:
>
> MAINTAINERS is the most frequently patched file
Almost all of them merge perfectly, with no problems what-so-ever. And the
merge conflicts, when they happen, are generally really trivial, and never
cause any subtle run-time bugs even if they were
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 09:33:15AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 08:59 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > I suggest the same for MAINTAINERS
> > Why, is it a merge problem for you?
>
> $ git-log --pretty=oneline --name-only | \
> grep -vP "[a-fA-F0-9]{40,40}\s" | sort | uniq -c |
On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 08:59 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > I suggest the same for MAINTAINERS
> Why, is it a merge problem for you?
$ git-log --pretty=oneline --name-only | \
grep -vP "[a-fA-F0-9]{40,40}\s" | sort | uniq -c | sort -rbn
541 MAINTAINERS
506 kernel/sched.c
374
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 12:30:14PM +0200, Pekka Pietikainen wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 11:02:15PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > This changeset does just that. Turns out that this makes things more
> > readable, as it's easier to look at a list of filenames for things than
> > picking through a
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 11:22:02PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 23:04 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > > In the big "linux-next" series of emails, David Miller suggested that
> > > the feature-removal-schedule file be broken up into little pieces, as it
> > > is causing merge
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:22:02 -0800 Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 23:04 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > > In the big "linux-next" series of emails, David Miller suggested that
> > > the feature-removal-schedule file be broken up into little pieces, as it
> > > is causing merge problems
Hartman (1):
Split up feature-removal-schedule.txt into individual files.
I'd say use the shorter 'feature-removal' for the dir name.
Otherwise ACK...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More maj
> |7
> Documentation/feature-removal-schedule/vfl1-ioctls
> | 16
> Documentation/feature-removal-schedule/vm_ops.nopage
> |6
> 26 files changed, 245 insertions(+), 308 deletions(-)
>
> ---
(+), 308 deletions(-)
---
Greg Kroah-Hartman (1):
Split up feature-removal-schedule.txt into individual files.
--
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
up feature-removal-schedule.txt into individual files.
I'd say use the shorter 'feature-removal' for the dir name.
Otherwise ACK...
--
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
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:22:02 -0800 Joe Perches wrote:
On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 23:04 -0800, David Miller wrote:
In the big linux-next series of emails, David Miller suggested that
the feature-removal-schedule file be broken up into little pieces, as it
is causing merge problems for
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 12:30:14PM +0200, Pekka Pietikainen wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 11:02:15PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
This changeset does just that. Turns out that this makes things more
readable, as it's easier to look at a list of filenames for things than
picking through a 300
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 11:22:02PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 23:04 -0800, David Miller wrote:
In the big linux-next series of emails, David Miller suggested that
the feature-removal-schedule file be broken up into little pieces, as it
is causing merge problems for
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 09:33:15AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 08:59 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
I suggest the same for MAINTAINERS
Why, is it a merge problem for you?
$ git-log --pretty=oneline --name-only | \
grep -vP [a-fA-F0-9]{40,40}\s | sort | uniq -c | sort -rbn
On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 08:59 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
I suggest the same for MAINTAINERS
Why, is it a merge problem for you?
$ git-log --pretty=oneline --name-only | \
grep -vP [a-fA-F0-9]{40,40}\s | sort | uniq -c | sort -rbn
541 MAINTAINERS
506 kernel/sched.c
374
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Joe Perches wrote:
MAINTAINERS is the most frequently patched file
Almost all of them merge perfectly, with no problems what-so-ever. And the
merge conflicts, when they happen, are generally really trivial, and never
cause any subtle run-time bugs even if they were to
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
So in that sense, I think both MAINTAINERS and the deprecation schedule
are totally uninteresting. Yes, they have merge conflicts. But those merge
conflicts are really really easy to handle.
That, btw, includes automatic merges for something
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:13:42 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Joe Perches wrote:
MAINTAINERS is the most frequently patched file
Almost all of them merge perfectly, with no problems what-so-ever. And the
merge conflicts, when they happen, are
Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
So in that sense, I think both MAINTAINERS and the deprecation schedule
are totally uninteresting. Yes, they have merge conflicts. But those merge
conflicts are really really easy to handle.
That, btw,
Hi Greg
> In the big "linux-next" series of emails, David Miller suggested that
> the feature-removal-schedule file be broken up into little pieces, as it
> is causing merge problems for different trees.
>
> This changeset does just that. Turns out that this makes things more
> readable, as
On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 23:04 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > In the big "linux-next" series of emails, David Miller suggested that
> > the feature-removal-schedule file be broken up into little pieces, as it
> > is causing merge problems for different trees.
I suggest the same for MAINTAINERS
I'd
From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:02:15 -0800
> In the big "linux-next" series of emails, David Miller suggested that
> the feature-removal-schedule file be broken up into little pieces, as it
> is causing merge problems for different trees.
>
> This changeset does just
Hartman (1):
Split up feature-removal-schedule.txt into individual files.
--
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
):
Split up feature-removal-schedule.txt into individual files.
--
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/
From: Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:02:15 -0800
In the big linux-next series of emails, David Miller suggested that
the feature-removal-schedule file be broken up into little pieces, as it
is causing merge problems for different trees.
This changeset does just that.
Hi Greg
In the big linux-next series of emails, David Miller suggested that
the feature-removal-schedule file be broken up into little pieces, as it
is causing merge problems for different trees.
This changeset does just that. Turns out that this makes things more
readable, as it's easier
On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 23:04 -0800, David Miller wrote:
In the big linux-next series of emails, David Miller suggested that
the feature-removal-schedule file be broken up into little pieces, as it
is causing merge problems for different trees.
I suggest the same for MAINTAINERS
I'd prefer a
38 matches
Mail list logo
