From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 15:44:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 15:44:48 -0400 Received: from ns.suse.de ([213.95.15.193]:41487 "HELO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 15:44:21 -0400 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 21:44:20 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove BK docs ... + x86-64 2.5.8 sync Message-ID: <20020420214420.A13635@wotan.suse.de> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 12:33:26PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > I don't want to use BitKeeper because I don't like open logging. I hope > > I can continue to maintain the x86-64 port even without being part > > of the inner bitkeeper circle. > > Absolutely - as you noticed I accepted the patch, even though there was a > clash (with a released kernel) in there. What clash was there? (just curious) I just checked and at least the kernel.org finger still shows 2.5.8 as the latest released kernel. > > > It would be good if you did e.g. > > a pre patch for every change that could require action from architecture > > or other maintainers as sync point (i guess that could be made easy with > > the appropiate script) > > This is why I think it might be a good reason to just have a daily script: > not just to create the patches, but also to kind of keep a running > commentary on the kernel list on what I've merged.. Would be fine for me. -Andi