[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1244800635.7172.114.camel@pasglop>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:57:15 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Linus <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
paulus@...ba.org, ppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: origin tree build failure
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 11:43 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 19:33 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > We should at least -try- to follow the
> > process we've defined, don't you think ?
>
> So you're saying -next should include whole new subsystems even though
> its not clear they will be merged?
Maybe yes. And if there's some debate as to whether it should be merged
or not, maybe Linus should make the decision, let -next carry it for a
few days to iron out those problems, and -then- merge it.
> That'll invariably create the opposite case where a tree doesn't get
> pulled and breaks bits due to its absence.
>
> -next does a great job of sorting the existing subsystem trees, but I
> don't think its Stephens job to decide if things will get merged.
No, it's not, but then, maybe Linus could play the game and -tell- us
whether he intend to merge or not at least a few days in advance :-)
> Therefore when things are in limbo (there was no definite ACK from Linus
> on perf counters) both inclusion and exclusion from -next can lead to
> trouble.
Well, Linus did ACK by merging :-) So he should have been able to give
that ack a few days in advance too..
Cheers,
Ben.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists