lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: -mm merge plans for 2.6.21
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:55:40 +1100
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org> wrote:

> Andrew Morton writes:
>
> > Once a subsystem has a subsystem tree (git or quilt) I basically never
> > merge anything which belongs to that tree. It's always
> >
> > originator->mm->subsystemtree->Linus
> >
> > If the subsystem tree maintainer wants to tell me "I can't be bothered
> > setting up a git pull for that, please merge it for me" then that's fine.
> >
> > But unless I'm told that, or unless the maintainer is vacationing or totally
> > asleep or unless the fix has some sufficiently high obviousness*importance product,
> > I'll just keep buffering it up.
>
> What about the sort of thing that crosses all archs? For example, the
> local_t changes? Particularly in the case where the change has to be
> made in generic code and in all archs at the same time, it makes sense
> to me for you to send the whole batch to Linus at the same time,
> rather than individual arch maintainers all sending their bit at
> varying times.
>

yup. It's better of course if the changes aren't both-way dependent and
often we do it that way. But if they really are that bound together then
I'll stage the patch in -mm, ensure that it doesn't conflict with any
queued-up arch patches and will merge it after the arch trees have gone in.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-02-09 02:05    [W:0.338 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site