On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:09:16 +0200 Dominik Brodowski <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > > Could I trouble you to resend them as plain-old-patches, with full > > changelogs along with your thoughts about the suitablity for > > 2.6.2[5678].x please? > > patches will be sent as replies to this message. Thanks for taking care of > this; I should have written more meaningful texts. Also, I failed to > remember the second patch hasn't been tested yet .. > > On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 10:00:17PM +0200, Andreas Mohr wrote: > > I wanted to test your 2nd patch (improved init), but was unable to do so > > (currently too busy due to large changes, plus distance to production system, > > downtime NOT appreciated ;). > > .. but still I think this is stuff for 2.6.27; not (yet) suitable for 2.6.26 > and 2.6.25 based on the -stable rules. > (cc stable) OK, thanks. I tagged these as Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxx> [2.6.26.x, 2.6.25.x but not immediately] which is a bit rubbery. What do you think are the criteria for deciding when these are ready for the backports? Something like "after 2.6.28-rc1 if nothing blew up"? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
