[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140804213902.070f32a1@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 21:39:02 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] scsi patch queue tree updated
Hi Christoph,
On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 04:34:04 -0700 Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 09:30:59PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > You realise that neither of these in linux-next as the scsi-core and
> > scsi-drivers trees had for-3.16 branches in the last round. I assume I
> > should just drop these trees completely from linux-next?
>
> Well, they get pulled in through James, so you can drop them for now.
Will do.
> I mostly put you on Cc so you could comment wether there are any hard
> rules on how long even those simple fixes should be in linux-next. I
> know you've put up stats for a few of the last merge windows about
> patches that weren't in linux-next, so there's been some tracking of it
> for sure.
If they are simple, clear fixes, then maybe a day or two just for build
coverage, but it is very much up to the maintainer. There are always a
few poatches that get through late (quote a few of which I suspect have
been "in train", just not yet published in the maintainer's tree).
And, of course, real fixes go in just about anytime ...
I don't think we believe in hard rules for anything :-)
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@...b.auug.org.au
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists