Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:46:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:46:46 -0500 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:15889 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:45:34 -0500 Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:53:44 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Greg KH cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [BK PATCH] klibc for 2.5.64 - try 2 In-Reply-To: <20030307233653.GD21315@kroah.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 921 Lines: 26 On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Greg KH wrote: > > I know it's late, sorry. Not a huge problem, since I don't think klibc itself is a stability issue. However, as you say: > But a lot of code that will need klibc, has not been converted to need > it yet, due to it not being there :) Yes. But that's not an argument that flies with me. I really want to see people actually using it, for real issues (even if they are potentially _small_ real issues). I feel that people who want to work on early stuff can easily merge it themselves (especially if they use BK), and show it to be useful. I don't have the slightest feeling that work can't be done unless _I_ merge it. Linus - 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/