On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 07:47:26 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > * Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:30:42 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > News: next-20121115 (i.e. tomorrow) will be the last release until > > > next-20121126 (which should be just be after -rc7, I guess - assuming > > > that Linus does not release v3.7 before then), so if you want something > > > in linux-next for a reasonable amount of testing, it should probably be > > > committed tomorrow. > > > > It would help if the old sched/numa code wasn't in -next while > > you're away. That would give me a clean run at 3.7 and will > > make it easier for others to integrate and test the four(!) > > different autoschednumacore implementations on top of > > linux-next. > > > > Pretty please? > > The next integration should have this solved: I have removed the > old sched/numa bits, replaced by the latest rebased/reworked > numa/core bits. > That solves one problem, but I still need to route around the numa stuff when preparing the 3.8-rc1 merge. Again! And yes, I'm assuming you're not targeting 3.8. Given the history behind this and the number of people who are looking at it, that's too hasty. Hugh can speak to his own reasons for feeling the same way. And I must say that I deeply regret not digging my heels in when this went into -next all those months ago. It has caused a ton of trouble for me and for a lot of other people. Put it in -next after 3.8-rc1 with a view to a 3.9 merge, please. -- 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
