On Mon 2009-01-12 11:58:09, [email protected] wrote:
>
> The patch titled
> LIS3LV02D: separate the core from HP ACPI API
> has been removed from the -mm tree. Its filename was
> lis3lv02d-separate-the-core-from-hp-acpi-api.patch
>
> This patch was dropped because it was merged into mainline or a subsystem tree
>
> The current -mm tree may be found at
> http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/
Thanks!
BTW... "-" for both "patch is junk" and "patch is now mainline" is quite
confusing. Could we get you to use "-" for "patch was dropped because
it is junk" and "*" (or something) for "patch is now mainline"?
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 21:30:44 +0100
Pavel Machek <[email protected]> wrote:
> BTW... "-" for both "patch is junk" and "patch is now mainline" is quite
> confusing. Could we get you to use "-" for "patch was dropped because
> it is junk" and "*" (or something) for "patch is now mainline"?
I think I can manage that.
On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 12:49 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 21:30:44 +0100
> Pavel Machek <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > BTW... "-" for both "patch is junk" and "patch is now mainline" is quite
> > confusing. Could we get you to use "-" for "patch was dropped because
> > it is junk" and "*" (or something) for "patch is now mainline"?
>
> I think I can manage that.
maybe:
-[short reason]patchname.patch
Examples
-[upstream]patchname.patch for mainline or subsytem tree
-[junk]patchname.patch
-[update]patchname.patch for 'updated version will be merged'
Or, if you started to track how things got upstream, then you could easily
let people know where to go looking for it.
-[mainline]
-[x86]
-[gregkh]
Just a thought.
Harvey