Linus Torvalds wrote:
quoted text
> 
> On Mon, 21 May 2007, Chris Wright wrote:
>> ---
>> [chrisw: Why is this not upstream yet?]
> 
> And equally importantly, why is it even in the stable queue if it's not 
> upstream.
> 
> It's against stable rules, and it means that we may have stuff that gets 
> fixed in -stable and not in -upstream, if people don't notice. THAT IS 
> BAD!
> 
> Having fixes in stable that don't exist in upstream make -stable be 
> worse than pointless - it means that we actively _lose_ bug-reports. It 
> may sound like a good idea in the short run, but it's a *horrible* thing 
> for the long run.
> 
> IOW, this should not be on the table for -stable, and people involved 
> should have made sure it's in -upstream first!

Strongly agreed.


quoted text
> And no, I do not think it's languishing in my mailqueue. I'm pretty sure 
> it's languishing somewhere else. 

AFAIK it was obsoleted by another Tejun patch which -is- upstream.

Am I missing something?

	Jeff



-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/