Tested your Lucid sru-18+19 branch

Brad Figg brad.figg at canonical.com
Mon Aug 23 14:32:54 UTC 2010


On 08/23/2010 07:16 AM, Stefan Bader wrote:
> On 08/23/2010 04:02 PM, Brad Figg wrote:
>> On 08/23/2010 01:14 AM, Stefan Bader wrote:
>>> On 08/21/2010 04:03 PM, Brad Figg wrote:
>>>> On 08/20/2010 01:38 PM, Tim Gardner wrote:
>>>>> Looks good. The desktop responsiveness is far superior under load compared to what it was at release.
>>>>>
>>>>> rtg
>>>>
>>>> Greg released .20 on Friday. In it were two mm patches. We already carry both
>>>> of these patches so we are already up-to-date with respect to .20.
>>>>
>>>> Brad
>>>
>>> Right, I would propose a 2.6.32.19/20 update (the tracking bug) in this case.
>>> For us the update between .19 and .20 is no change.
>>>
>>> Stefan
>>>
>>
>> The tracking bug is setup as a 18/19/20 tracking bug.
>>
>> Brad
>
> I think I noted somewhere before that I would at least split up 18 and 19. Those
> releases are big enough to be better tracked in their own report.
>
> Stefan
>

I don't have a problem splitting the application of the patches
into two pull requests however I don't understand why you want
it done. There is no ABI bump in the entire set and .20 is a
no-op. There are only 32 commits between .17 and .18.

Brad
-- 
Brad Figg brad.figg at canonical.com http://www.canonical.com




More information about the kernel-team mailing list