On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 09:30:04AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Bruce, > > On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:20:59 -0400 "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I've also been acting as a (somewhat inconsistent) locks.c maintainer. > > > > Would it make it any easier if I kept a locks-next branch that you could > > pull separately? Or should I try to get that stuff into some other > > tree? > > A separate branch is possible, but if it is only one or two commits it is > hardly worth it. Lets see how it goes. OK. > However (I don't mean to pick on you, really :-)) your current tree has a > merge that says "Merge branch 'for-2.6.29' into for-mm". I (and Andrew) > really don't want any 2.6.29 stuff in linux-next until after 2.6.28-rc1 - > it just muddies the conflicts. So can you remove that merge for now (its > only a few days) and I will revert that merge in linux-next today. Whoops. OK, hopefully the current nfsd-next is more to your liking.... --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
