Hi Linus,
Next time you are tempted to take one of these, please resist. :-)
It was not urgent, could have been (at least) broken up and sent to the
respective maintainers, and caused many conflicts in linux-next (which
either means unnecessary rebases/merges or you will see the conflicts
next merge window).
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:04:27 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Linus,
>
> Next time you are tempted to take one of these, please resist. :-)
>
> It was not urgent, could have been (at least) broken up and sent to the
> respective maintainers, and caused many conflicts in linux-next (which
> either means unnecessary rebases/merges or you will see the conflicts
> next merge window).
Probably the best time for this sort of thing is immediately after
-rc1, when everyone's out-of-tree trees are the smallest.
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:04 AM, Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Linus,
>
> Next time you are tempted to take one of these, please resist. :-)
>
> It was not urgent, could have been (at least) broken up and sent to the
> respective maintainers, and caused many conflicts in linux-next (which
> either means unnecessary rebases/merges or you will see the conflicts
> next merge window).
Hi Stephen,
Sorry for the noise. I tried twice to go through each maintainer's
tree, but it didn't work. Then, as suggested by Ingo I sent directly
to Linus. Maybe the problem was the timing. I did sent shortly after
rc1, but because of some problems in the patch it was integrated only
after rc2.
I hope in next versions we don't have so many misspellings, so the
conflicts would not be as of now.
Lucas De Marchi