Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 09:40:55 -0800
From: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
Cc: Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org>, torvalds@osdl.org,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFQ] Rules for accepting patches into the linux-releases tree
Message-ID: <20050305174055.GB13104@kroah.com>
References: <20050304222146.GA1686@kroah.com> <20050305135917.GB6373@stusta.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20050305135917.GB6373@stusta.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1032
Lines: 31

On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 02:59:17PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 02:21:46PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> > Anything else anyone can think of?  Any objections to any of these?
> > I based them off of Linus's original list.
> 
> Are these 100% fixed rules or just guidelines you use?

Guidelines of course :)

> An example that doesn't fit:
> 
> A patch of me to remove an unused function was accepted into 2.6.11 .
> Today, someone mailed that there's an external GPL'ed module that uses 
> this function.
> 
> A patch to re-add this function as it was in 2.6.10 does not fulfill 
> your criteria, but it is a low-risk way to fix a regression compared to 
> 2.6.10 .

Yes, I wouldn't have a problem with adding this kind of fix.  Do others
disagree?

thanks,

greg k-h
-
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/