On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 05:40:33PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
quoted text
> > > But distros can easily add the device id to their kernel if needed, it
> > > isn't something that the -stable tree shoud be accepting.  Otherwise, we
> > > will be swamped with those types of patches...
> > > 
> > 
> > Oh sure, leave the distros swamped with them instead. :)
> > 
> > And they all have to do it separately, meaning they don't stay in sync
> > and they duplicate each other's work...
> 
> Well they *don't* have to work that separately. They could set up some
> shared tree which would look suspiciously like what Greg is doing but
> with the ID updates.... ;)

And is this really a problem?  The whole goal of the -stable tree was to
accomidate the users who relied on kernel.org kernels, and wanted
bugfixes and security updates.  It was not for new features or new
hardware support.

If people feel we should revisit this goal, then that's fine, and I have
no objection to that.  But until then, I think the rules that we have
had in place for over the past 2 years should still remain in affect.

thanks,

greg k-h
-
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/