On tis, 2006-12-19 at 11:20 +0000, Andrew wrote:
> Why is the patch been marked as rejected for an edgy back port?
I think the 2.6.19 version has been rejected for edgy. 2.6.19 is not
even in edgy, so I think it's ok.
/Mikael
>
> Ben I'm waiting for this patch to be back ported and there is no reason
> described for the rejection could you describe why? Have I got this
> wrong?
>
> I'm still waiting for an edgy back port...
>
--
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
On tis, 2006-12-19 at 11:20 +0000, Andrew wrote:
> Why is the patch been marked as rejected for an edgy back port?
I think the 2.6.19 version has been rejected for edgy. 2.6.19 is not
even in edgy, so I think it's ok.
/Mikael
>
> Ben I'm waiting for this patch to be back ported and there is no reason
> described for the rejection could you describe why? Have I got this
> wrong?
>
> I'm still waiting for an edgy back port...
>
--
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose