On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 06:40:21PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> I wasn't aware Andrea switched the way he stored his patches
> lately ;)
he's doing that for quite some time now (for suse's kernels too) and
that works pretty well :-)
> OTOH, the advantage of having a big patch means that it's
>
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Ingo Oeser wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 02:37:47PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > Once we are sure 2.4 is stable for just about anybody I
> > will submit some of the really trivial enhancements for
> > inclusion; all non-trivial patches I will maintain in a
> > VM bigpatch,
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 02:37:47PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Once we are sure 2.4 is stable for just about anybody I
> will submit some of the really trivial enhancements for
> inclusion; all non-trivial patches I will maintain in a
> VM bigpatch, which will be submitted for inclusion around
>
On 6 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> In short, releasing 2.4.0 does not open up the floor to just
> about anything. In fact, to some degree it will probably make
> patches _less_ likely to be accepted than before, at least for a
> while.
I think this is an excellent idea. To help with this I'
> rather spend the time _really_ beating on the patches that _would_ be a
> big issue. Things like security (_especially_ remote attacks), outright
> crashes, or just totally unusable systems because it can't see the
> harddisk.
In which case the priority should be fixing all the broken LFS sup
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> I thought I'd mention the policy for 2.4.x patches so that nobody gets
> confused about these things. In some cases people seem to think that
> "since 2.4.x is out now, we can relax, go party, and generally goof
> off".
>
> Not so.
Sounds like a perfectly valid argume
6 matches
Mail list logo
