Re: upstream resynch
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 06:12:26PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> I've sent a number of bugfixes upstream for inclusion in 2.6.7, based
> on hch's breakup of the old cvs tree:
> patches/00_dont-dereference-netdev.name-before-register_netdev:2:This fixes Debian BTS #234817.
> patches/00_drivers-atkbd-quiten:2:This fixes Debian BTS #239036.
> patches/00_drivers-net-irda-dma_api:2:This resolves Debian BTS #218878.
> patches/00_drivers-sb-pnp_unregister:2:This fixes Debian BTS #218845.
> patches/00_drivers-scsi-3w-xxxx-no_unregister:2:This fixes Debian BTS #181581.
> patches/00_drivers-scsi-advansys-dma_api:2:This fixes Debian BTS #245238.
> patches/00_drivers-scsi-sd-NO_SENSE:2:This fixes Debian BTS #232494.
> patches/00_drivers-usb-storage-new-sony-device:2:This fixes Debian BTS #243650.
> patches/00_envp:2:This fixes Debian BTS #58566.
> patches/00_fs-isofs-acorn:2:This fixes Debian BTS #141660.
> patches/00_fs-isofs-dont-check-period:2:This fixes Debian BTS #162190
The 3ware patch looks bogus, most of the others got sent upstream at
least once before (sorry hch). Looks like I've been told which side bk
trees the fixes are sitting in or otherwise which ones aren't in side
bk trees etc., as well as discovered lapsed mailing list memberships
that impeded my search for previous sends of the things.
-- wli
Reply to: