Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S284153AbRLFRSp>; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 12:18:45 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S285051AbRLFRSa>; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 12:18:30 -0500
Received: from lightning.swansea.linux.org.uk ([194.168.151.1]:32014 "EHLO
	the-village.bc.nu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S284153AbRLFRSL>; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 12:18:11 -0500
Subject: Re: [kbuild-devel] Converting the 2.5 kernel to kbuild 2.5
To: stoffel@casc.com (John Stoffel)
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 17:25:48 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: riel@conectiva.com.br (Rik van Riel), landley@trommello.org (Rob Landley),
        esr@thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond), linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kbuild-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
In-Reply-To: <15375.41990.439405.8024@gargle.gargle.HOWL> from "John Stoffel" at Dec 06, 2001 11:59:50 AM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL6]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <E16C2HM-0002JR-00@the-village.bc.nu>
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

> So has anyone had time to test the Python version 1.5 based CML2 that
> was posted?  Would that make it more acceptable?

For 2.5 its a great leap forward. For 2.4 its irrelevant. Its simply not the
way stable kernel trees are run, even for people who think they are above
the rules and traditions
-
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/