Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 09 Mar 2005 13:27:11 -0800 | From | "Randy.Dunlap" <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.x.y gatekeeper discipline |
| |
DHollenbeck wrote: > I had hoped that the proper discipline in rejecting non-critical patches > would have pertained. I remain unconvinced that the .y releases are > anything but noise that should have been kept elsewhere. After reading > through a patch summary, I see this as typical: > > > ---------------------- > > > ChangeSet 2005/02/22 20:56:28-05:00, bunk @ stusta.de > > <http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/testing/cset/cset-bunk@stusta.de%5Bjgarzik%5D%7CChangeSet%7C20050223015628%7C49266.txt> > > [diffview] > > <http://www.kernel.org/diff/diffview.cgi?file=/pub/linux/kernel/v2.5/testing/cset/cset-bunk@stusta.de%5Bjgarzik%5D%7CChangeSet%7C20050223015628%7C49266.txt> > > > [PATCH] drivers/net/via-rhine.c: make a variable static const > > This patch makes a needlessly global variable static const. > > Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> > > ---------------------------------- > > It's possible I simply don't get it, but the above description of a > patch hardly seems like it would qualify for the intentions of the > 2.6.x.y series. > > Is this typical, and is this in line with the intent of the x.y series? > > If this is going to achieve the objective, the gatekeeper has to be a > real stubborn, unpopular horse's ass it seems, with a sign on his > forehead that reads: GO AWAY AND COME ANOTHER DAY! > > Somewhat disappointedly,
Are you looking at 2.6.x.y patches? I don't think so......
-- ~Randy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |