Hi! > >Optimally, we could keep up with the pace and have relevant 2.5 patches > >go through i2c CVS first and have files in sync. This seems not be the > >case, so I say it is better to remove revision tags from i2c files in > >Linus's tree altogether. > > For i2c, we've kept up for years - in fact we have the opposite problem now, > we have lots of stuff in the i2c tree that we haven't gotten in to either > 2.4 or 2.5. > (2.4 is at our release 2.6.1, about 15 months old, and 2.5 is at 2.6.4, > about > 15 months old). Hmm, you probably need to patch-bomb Linus a little ;-). > Cristoph's changes are largest I can recall that didn't come from us. > That's what happens when we aren't getting changes in - other > folks make the changes and we get where we are now. Well, I hope it is not too bad. One solution to cvs-and-linus-out-of-sync is of course to drop 2.5 from your CVS and do all development through Linus... He's not *that* bad at accepting patches from maintainers. If you want to keep 2.5 in your CVS, easiest probably is to scan patch-2.5.XX from linus for any i2c/sensors changes, and if they are applicable, just apply them to CVS... Pavel -- Worst form of spam? Adding advertisment signatures ala sourceforge.net. What goes next? Inserting advertisment *into* email?
