On Sun, 2011-05-01 at 01:52 +0530, Faheem Mitha wrote: > > On Sat, 30 Apr 2011, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > On Mon, 2011-04-25 at 13:35 +0530, Faheem Mitha wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011, Faheem Mitha wrote: > >> > >>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011, Ben Hutchings wrote: > >> > >>>> I think this is just too much detail for this section. If you think > >>>> it's necessary to explain ABI maintenance in this much detail, that > >>>> probably belongs in a new chapter. > >> > >>> Ok. Well, feel free to take it out then. In any case, I hope you will > >>> apply some version of this patch. Let me know if I can do anything else. > >> > >> I don't know what new chapter you have in mind, but I suggest applying the > >> patch for now (if it seems Ok with you) with the excessive detail about > >> the ABI removed and we can talk about it further if you wish, > > > > See version 1.0.10. > > Yes, I saw that when I checked your svn repos. You forgot (or > intentionally omitted, but if so, said nothing) to add the bit about the > linux-headers-common to 4.2. See the relevant portion of my patch below. I did indeed forget that. Thanks for reminding me. > Otherwise I think you've covered the ground pretty well. The online > version isn't up to date yet, though. > > > By the way, there is a separate list for kernel-handbook at > > firstname.lastname@example.org, though I'm not sure > > whether it should remain a separate list. > > Are you suggesting I use this? Are all interested parties subscribed? [...] It's probably best to mail both lists for now. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part