On Mon, 2006-07-24 at 08:56 -0500, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > I don't think the numbered patch scheme we're using in the paravirtops > patch series is going to work very well. It assumes that we've got the > patch order of all the existing patches right, and that we don't need to > fit in any new patches between them. I think we'll need the flexibility > of rearranging/grouping patches to make them most suited for submission, > but if the patch names contain their (original) order encoded into their > names, it will just be a confusing mess. Series file does control order, I just like ls -l to look sane. Feel free to break/alter/move/change! Rusty. -- Help! Save Australia from the worst of the DMCA: http://linux.org.au/law
