> I understand. > I didn't expect it to be included in the 2.4 patch; > you're working off of the 2.8.2 release, right? Not really. I am working off of CVS since 2.8.0. It was useful because I sometimes need to make a few adjustments to CVS so that the patches I send look better. Now I'll have to change the way I work. I'll keep my local copy of the CVS apart and won't update it, still I will commit my changes to the CVS. Hopefully there won't be too many conflicts, or this method will fail badly. > The 'big idea' is to get some testing of the patch > in the 2.4 world, then submit a 2.6 version of the patch to Greg. > The patch came in to us against 2.4 so it's much easier > to do it this way. Isn't it strange to use 2.4 for testing? I wouldn't think people will write drivers needing new protocols for the 2.4 kernel. New drivers should go to 2.6. Once Linux 2.7 starts its life, I'll invite you to move any development effort there, and keep the 2.4 CVS repository for bugfixes only. Idealy the CVS repository would even disappear and the bugfixes committed to 2.4 itself, but since it's unlikely that all of the CVS will be merged into 2.4, I guess we'll have to keep the repository forever. -- Jean Delvare http://www.ensicaen.ismra.fr/~delvare/
