From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 18:59:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 18:59:42 -0500 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:49843 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 18:59:40 -0500 Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 16:08:45 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <20030320.160845.121240938.davem@redhat.com> To: fubar@us.ibm.com Cc: hshmulik@intel.com, bonding-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, bonding-announce@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-net@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com, jgarzik@pobox.com Subject: Re: [Bonding-devel] [patch] (2/8) Add 802.3ad support to bonding (released to bonding on sourceforge) From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: References: X-FalunGong: Information control. X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Jay Vosburgh Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:53:14 -0800 I have incorporated Shmulik Hen's bug fix patches to bonding (patch numbers 2 and 3) into the current code and released the new patch to sourceforge.net/projects/bonding. The current bonding update is bonding-2.4.20-20030320. The only changes I made were minor spelling / formatting fixes. So when do these changes end up being sent to myself or Jeff for mainline inclusion? I have no objection to the sourceforge project for bonding, but I do object to there being such latency between what the sourceforge tree has (especially bug fixes) and what gets submitted into the mainline. Personally, I'd prefer that all development occur in the mainline tree. That gives you testing coverage that is impossible otherwise.