On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 08:31:46PM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:I agree, and that's what I do. The problem is, the API change is still in my tree. So, if for example, the IB tree goes and adds some new functionality before my API changes have landed, they need to use the "old" API in order for them to be able to test and build things on their own. Then, when the -next tree merges everything together, the IB tree breaks the build, not my driver tree. It's those "who goes first" type things that end up being the cause of a lot of Andrew's headaches I think :) thanks, greg k-h --
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 002/196] Chinese: rephrase English introduction in HOWTO |
| Mark Lord | 2.6.25-rc8: FTP transfer errors |
| Marcin Slusarz | Re: 2.6.25-rc2-mm1: build failure (x86) |
| Balbir Singh | Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/7] RSS controller core |
git: | |
| bcpa | Binkley/Rfmaill/Cnews scripts?.. |
| Rogier Wolff | Re: MIPS R3000 board to run Linux, anyone? |
| Gary Kahn | compiled ghostscript, got 2 megabyte executable |
| Joshua Lobel | Does anyone know anything about LOCUS' DOS MERGE running on Linux |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Andrew Morton | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
