Øystein Walle <oystwa@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > The follow-up series you link to seems to be a superset of the first series, > which is what confused me. This is why I thought perhaps a subset of the latter > series was accepted. But I see now that the dates match that of the first > series, and you even applied it very soon after. Strange choice to include the > first five patches in the follow-up series, then... It probably happened because even by then the previous round v4 was not in 'next' when the later iteration was prepared, and then the topic perhaps died at around the time GSoC of the year finished. As long as the earlier and less ambitious attempt turns out to give us a net positive benefit, these early steps may still advance through 'next' and down to a release.
