From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932275AbXCJW1E (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:27:04 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932283AbXCJW1D (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:27:03 -0500 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.170]:4672 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932275AbXCJW1A (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:27:00 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=beW73Y4zHBzr/Gw/j4+3+7ESYbuIv5TYm6wivP5SlYQmNeN3KQHZ6PIed+ron7XF2/afmpF8Yh27TXv3oQo/3QVt9phFv3J6UPLLbE8IicA+DB+q/vXGFho7Q+Ra1uBw2kVvF6KquPodLlZX5tbepXzDoD8TpAWL9vTl16KNDqc= Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:26:58 -0500 From: "michael chang" To: "Willy Tarreau" Subject: Re: [ck] Re: RSDL v0.28 for 2.6.20 Cc: "Stephen Clark" , "ck list" , "linux kernel mailing list" In-Reply-To: <20070310221150.GA6274@1wt.eu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200703101845.59497.kernel@kolivas.org> <45F2F45F.6000403@seclark.us> <20070310191118.GL943@1wt.eu> <20070310221150.GA6274@1wt.eu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 3/10/07, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 04:56:57PM -0500, michael chang wrote: > > On 3/10/07, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > >BTW, Con, I think that you should base your work on 2.6.20.[23] and not > > >2.6.20 next time, due to this conflict. It will get wider adoption. > ^^^^^^^^^^ > > > Maybe I'm naive, but I find this hard to understand -- 2.6.20.2 didn't > > exist when Con published his patch. (Con published it ~12 hours before > > the release of 2.6.20.2, from what I can tell.) How can he base his > > work on something that didn't yet exist? (And it applied cleanly to > > 2.6.20.1, the latest when he published it.) > > You see the words I have underlined ? "next time". I know for sure he > published it before 2.6.20.2, but now that it is out, I suggested that > Con rebases his work on this version for new releases. > Oh. That's my mistake, then. That makes sense. To me, it sounded like you were implying he was supposed to base it on 2.6.20.2 in advance, for some reason. *sigh* -- ~Mike - Just the crazy copy cat.