[lkml]   [2005]   [Nov]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: merge status
Con Kolivas <> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 10:01 am, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > James Bottomley <> wrote:
> > > it's my contributors who drop me in it
> > > by leaving their patch sets until you declare a kernel, dumping the
> > > integration testing on me in whatever time window is left.
> >
> > Yes, I think I'm noticing an uptick in patches as soon as a kernel is
> > released.
> >
> > It's a bit irritating, and is unexpected (here, at least). I guess people
> > like to hold onto their work for as long as possible so when they release
> > it, it's in the best possible shape.
> I suspect part of that is the concern about whether the code will merge with
> whatever -mm looks like next. Of course you already do ludicrous amounts of
> merging, but sometimes you'll just throw it back and say "too many rejects".

Well of course that's not a concern for people who work against the git
trees - scsi/usb/ia64/whatever developers.

But yes, sometimes people's work does clash just too much with things which
are already in subsystem trees or in -mm. Fortunately it's relatively
rare, and I do think it's best to ask people to develop against latest
-linus rather than against a crazy -mmoving target.

Especially as lots of people are stuck using git, rather than high-tech
patch management technologies ;)

Actually, I disagree with you - it's at 2.6.x release-time that all trees,
including -mm are at their most divergent. Presumably these developers are
working against the relevant subsystem git tree, and hence can merge into
the subsystem maintainer at any time.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-11-10 01:27    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean