[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20130716135015.62f64a255f3de76946651222@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:50:15 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
Cc: Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: update references to v2.6.x in
development-process
Hi Paul,
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 22:13:50 -0400 Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com> wrote:
>
> On a similar note, I was thinking about the recent thread on linux-next
> where we were indicating that people shouldn't rebase linux-next content
> on a whim, and that new devel (vs. bugfix) content shouldn't appear in
> the linux-next content during the merge window. There is no question
> that the linux-next process is integral to the main flow of patches to
> mainline, so I think Documentation/development-process/2.Process (the
> same file) should also capture those points in the linux-next section.
> Do you have some pre-canned text we can insert there, or should I draft
> something up for you to review?
The latter would be certainly easier for me :-) If that is not easy, let
me know and I will write something (even without swearing ;-)).
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@...b.auug.org.au
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists