Re: [RFQ] Rules for accepting patches into the linux-releases tree

[Ian Pilcher]

Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 02:59:17PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
>
> > An example that doesn't fit:
> >
> > A patch of me to remove an unused function was accepted into 2.6.11 .
> > Today, someone mailed that there's an external GPL'ed module that uses 
> > this function.
> >
> > A patch to re-add this function as it was in 2.6.10 does not fulfill 
> > your criteria, but it is a low-risk way to fix a regression compared to 
> > 2.6.10 .
>
>
> Yes, I wouldn't have a problem with adding this kind of fix.  Do others
> disagree?

Something about major functional regressions?

--
========================================================================
Ian Pilcher                                        i.pilcher@xxxxxxxxxxx
========================================================================

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/