On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:55:40 +1100
Paul Mackerras <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
