[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 14:46:40 -0800
From: David Brown <davidb@...eaurora.org>
To: Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Stepan Moskovchenko <stepanm@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the msm tree with the arm tree
On Wed, Feb 02 2011, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> The actual problem here is that some people, notably the msm folks, are
> bypassing the maintainer hierarchy and going straight to Linus for their
> pull requests instead of asking RMK to pull. We once debated this at
> some point and it was agreed that completely independent SOC specific
> code with no dependencies on the common ARM code _could_ go straight to
> Linus directly if they crave for it. But in this case:
>
> 1) the conflict is obviously simple
>
> 2) the conflict resolution is just as obvious
>
> 3) and Stephen is able and willing to carry this conflict resolution for
> the foreseeable future until this all gets merged in mainline.
>
> So... WTF is the actual problem here?
I hadn't really brought this up as a problem, but was mostly wondering
if it was ok to just have Stephen carry the conflict resolution until
the next merge window. The rest of the comments came from Greg.
David
--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
--
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