Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:47:55 -0700 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: 4 stable kernel review cycles starting |
| |
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 08:53:32AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:38:31AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 03:44:45PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 04:03:38PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > Well, I up and moved cities and caused a bunch of stable patches to be > > > > backlogged. I've caught up with all of the ones that were marked as > > > > being wished to be applied to the stable trees, and still have a bunch > > > > of pending requests still queued up in my mailbox. > > > > > > > > But, due to the number of the current patches already applied, it is > > > > time to just let these go and work on the other pending stuff after > > > > this. > > > > > > Greg, I send a series of 19 patches for XFS updates to stable@kernel.org > > > back on the 12th March for 2.6.32 (subject was "[PATCH 0/19] xfs: > > > 2.6.32.y stable tree updates"). > > > > > > The patches were cc'd to the XFS list and they made it there: > > > > > > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2010-03/msg00125.html > > > > > > so I'm wondering if you've got them queued up or not or whether > > > I need to resend them to you.... > > > > > > > So don't worry, if anyone has asked for some patches to be applied to > > > > some stable trees, and you don't see it here, just give it some time, > > > > I'm still catching up on things (hey, I'm just happy I have an internet > > > > connection again...) > > > > > > I sent these prior to the last stable release that had this same > > > comment, so I didn't get worried that they had been missed. Now they > > > are missing from the next stable release, I'm getting worried. :/ > > > > Yes, they are still in my "to-apply" queue. I also have a series of > > ext4 and kvm patches as well as a mess of wireless patches to wade > > through, so you are in good company. > > Ok, I just wanted to make sure they were in the queue and not some > bit bucket somewhere. > > > The issue is that applying individual patches like this is more > > "difficult" than just handling patches that are already marked in > > Linus's kernel tree as to be added to the stable queues. So it > > takes a bit more time and effort to get to those patches, while > > still keeping up with the series like you, and other developers, > > sent. > > Understood. Would providing a git tree to pull from for large series > like the XFS one make this easier for you in future? I can do that > bit of extra work if that makes things easier for you...
No, patches are still easier, I would have to convert the git tree to patches anyway, so for now, this is fine.
thanks,
greg k-h
| |