* Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Firstly, anyone with a forked kernel with outstanding patches
> > > > that are not in x86.git only has themselves to blame. We want to
> > > > actively discourage forking and sitting on patches too long.
> > >
> > > Curious - what is the purpose of the x86.git tree these days?
> >
> > what do want to imply by 'these days'?
>
> I wondered when you wrote "anyone with a forked kernel with
> outstanding patches that are not in x86.git" if this was only x86
> specific patches or more than that. I could have a slev of patches in
> the works for parts that are no x86 specific (which I unfortunately do
> not have).
ah, i now understand what you mean. The stuff in -mm that touches
arch/x86 is for actively maintained areas which are generally quite
clean.
So this is not a problem in practice - massively unclean areas of code,
which are the primary target for cleanups, are not actively developed. [
perhaps because there's some level of correlation between unclean code
and lack of developer interest :-/ ]
Ingo
--
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/
