On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 3:57 PM, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote: > From: Grant Likely <grant.lik...@secretlab.ca> > Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 02:26:43 -0600 > >> David, as I mentioned below, I'd really like to get the core changes >> (1, 4, 5 6) merged into 2.6.30 (assuming Andy confirms they are okay). > > No, sorry. > > We could have worked out the interdependencies before the merge window > openned up. There is no reason this could not have sat in at least > somebody's tree before the merge window started.
It's been out there on the list since before the merge window, getting tested by more than just me. This is not series which has simply dropped out of thin air. I've been working hard to address issues reported by others (Thanks Olof!) and to keep it building and applying cleanly to the top of tree. > It therefore didn't get any -next exposure, so it's unreasonable to > merge this stuff now. Since when has sitting in a -next tree been a requirement for merging when the series has been kept up to date and tested? I purposefully kept it out of -next to ensure that when it was applied for real to a -next tree it would be as complete, bug free, and bisectable as possible since once it hits a signed-off -next branch the individual commit cannot be modified. g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
