On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 12:47:36PM +0100, "Jan H. Schönherr" wrote: > Am 07.12.2012 03:51, schrieb Joe Perches: > > On Thu, 2012-12-06 at 16:19 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > >> On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:37:30 -0800 > >> Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote: > >>> Can you please pick this up for -next now and I'll > >>> redo my patches against -next for -rc1 so I'm not > >>> delayed until 3.9? > >> > >> It would be better to do things in the other order. > >> > >> a) Your patches perform mainly code-movement which doesn't cause > >> functional changes. Jan's patches are functional changes which > >> require more thought and testing and possible fixups. > > > > Fine by me. Jan? > > No problem. > > I agree with Andrew, that patches 9 to 14 could use indeed some > more eyeballs. > > Patches 1 to 8 are more straight-forward, and I would consider > these ready. However, they are also those, where I probably won't > have any trouble rebasing them on top of your changes. > > > Anyway. Until now I always thought my patches will end up in the > queue of some maintainer, so that I don't have to bother about > _when_ posting my patches. Therefore: when should I repost a > version rebased on top of Joe's changes?
You are correct, I'll end up queuing these up to my tree when 3.8-rc1 is out, they will live in linux-next until 3.8-final is out, and then go to Linus for 3.9-rc1. Right now, my trees are frozen due to the merge window about to open up. Your patience is appreciated. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
