To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
From: Ian Pilcher <i.pilcher@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [RFQ] Rules for accepting patches into the linux-releases tree
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 14:01:15 -0600
Message-ID: <d0d2sa$h12$1@sea.gmane.org>
References: <20050304222146.GA1686@kroah.com> <20050305135917.GB6373@stusta.de> <20050305174055.GB13104@kroah.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (X11/20041127)
In-Reply-To: <20050305174055.GB13104@kroah.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1053
Lines: 25

Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 02:59:17PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> 
> 
>>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?
> 

Something about major functional regressions?

-- 
========================================================================
Ian Pilcher                                        i.pilcher@comcast.net
========================================================================

-
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/