Hi Len, On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:58:06 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > * Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Ingo, > > If you don't mind, I'd like to continue to keep a version > > of the acpi-reset-default patch in my test tree so that > > it is seen by linux-next. Once I have something that > > I think merits upstream inclusion, I'll send a request > > to you. Will that work? > > It's fine to me - although i'm a bit uncomfortable about keeping a > known breakage in linux-next. > > linux-next is not really there to experiment around, it's there to > push the known stable stuff to. linux-next has enough trouble with > _unintended_ breakages. > > At least that's how i push patches to linux-next - i've Cc:-ed Stephen > and Andrew if there's a clarification needed. See my posting yesterday about procedures for linux-next. It is really only for integration testing. If your code does not "merit upstream inclusion", then it should not be in linux-next. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Attachment:
pgpwuVouyfBKy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
