lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] target: Updates for v3.3-rc1 (round 1)
From
Date
On Tue, 2012-01-10 at 13:51 -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-01-10 at 11:33 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-01-10 at 19:19 +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > 2012/1/10 Nicholas A. Bellinger <nab@linux-iscsi.org>
> > > > *) Initial merge for the SRP target (ib_srpt) fabric module (bart)
> > >
> > > As far as I know the last time that patch was posted for review is
> > > November 4 (http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.scsi.target.devel/420).
> > > The date of the ib_srpt commit is December 16
> > > (http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/nab/target-pending.git;a=commitdiff;h=a42d985bd5b234da8b61347a78dc3057bf7bb94d).
> > > The two patches aren't identical. That makes me wonder whether that
> > > patch should have been reposted for review ?
> > >
> >
> > Hi Bart,
> >
> > The changes since the Nov 4 RFC are listed in the patch commit log:
> >
> > ib_srpt: Make compilation with BUG=n proceed`
> > ib_srpt: Use new target_core_fabric.h include
> > ib_srpt: Check hex2bin() return code to silence build warning
> >
> > These are all very minor and did not warrant another full RFC posting.
>
> They might not warrant a full RFC reposting, but individually they
> should have been posted to the list, so Bart is right.
>

Thanks for your input here, but the last two where reported to
linux-next / target-devel and fixed weeks ago. The first one was from
Bart himself.

> As a maintainer, there shouldn't be a patch in your tree that hasn't
> been over the mailing list once. This is for three reasons
>
> 1. Git is a great source control tool, bit it doesn't hugely
> facilitate review. Even virtuoso git users find it easier to
> read and reply to emailed patches for this purpose
> 2. Not everyone in our community is a wholesale git user. For
> them, email might be the only way they get to see a patch, so
> using git alone lowers our pool of reviewers (and reviewers are
> the species we most need to encourage)
> 3. Enforcing the rule that everything is emailed first can save you
> from the maintainers curse: the temptation to bung in that last
> little "obvious" fix just before you send your tree to Linus
> which later turns out to cause huge regressions and much
> heartache.
>
> You don't have to endlessly repost patch series, just make sure that
> small updates get posted for review and comment before they get applied.
>

Yes, yes and yes. :)

--nab





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-10 22:07    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site