> On Aug 7, 2017, at 3:48 PM, Rafał Miłecki <zaj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 7 August 2017 at 21:20, Philip Prindeville > <philipp_s...@redfish-solutions.com> wrote: >>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 10:11 AM, John Crispin <j...@phrozen.org> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I rebased my ages old kernel patch cleanup series. It can be found here [1]. >>> >>> the series annotates all patches and splits them up into 3 folders >>> backports/pending/hacks. >> >> >> What’s the criteria for each? >> >> And isn’t “hacks” kind of self-defeating? If someone submits a PR that adds >> something to “hacks”, won’t the default position be, “since this is >> admittedly a hack, it’s not really needed and you should find a more >> compelling fix”? > > Sometimes getting upstream-acceptable solution takes months (or > years), so I'm OK accepting well-described and argumented "hacks”.
Fair enough. -Philip _______________________________________________ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
