From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756467Ab1KHXAf (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Nov 2011 18:00:35 -0500 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.125]:40650 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753353Ab1KHXAe (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Nov 2011 18:00:34 -0500 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=NJxXCjGg c=1 sm=0 a=ZycB6UtQUfgMyuk2+PxD7w==:17 a=wom5GMh1gUkA:10 a=5SG0PmZfjMsA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=D19gQVrFAAAA:8 a=LyQmd4zf4snJh9QsEnAA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=ZycB6UtQUfgMyuk2+PxD7w==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 74.67.80.29 Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 18:00:32 -0500 From: Steven Rostedt To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Linux 3.2-rc1 Message-ID: <20111108230032.GB4510@home.goodmis.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 06:10:02PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > So it's been two weeks since 3.1, and you know how it works by now. > > I have to say, this wasn't my favorite merge window ever. I really > wanted to take only things that had been in -next, but verifying it > was fairly painful, since a lot of the trees had been rebased, and the > ones that hadn't been rebased often had some extra patches that still > showed up when I did my "git log linux-next..FETCH_HEAD" thing. > > On the whole, most of it was all good, and I didn't really end up > complaining to people. I'm pretty sure that there were trees I > shouldn't have let through, but the majority really had been in -next. > > The other point of irritation was that there really was a lot of stuff > that came in yesterday and basically treated the merge window as some > kind of high-tech limbo dance. If it hadn't been for a few trees I > wanted to pull, I had actually planned to do the -rc1 release Sunday > afternoon instead, just to cut those annoying last-minute pull > requests off. > > And some trees didn't get pulled. You know who you are, and you can > try to appeal to my softer side if you think it was unfair. Of course, > if you *do* find my softer side, please tell my wife and kids too, > they'll be thrilled. /me searches for the softer side. > > But the main reason some trees didn't get pulled was that they > generated long flame-wars, and I just felt like I really didn't need > the aggravation this time around, especially as I knew I had plenty > other trees to pull. Is there a reason that the ktest tree didn't get pulled? Is it because it is not in next (nor has it ever been). I could arrange to put it there, but as it is a simple tool in the tools directory I didn't think it required the next processing. But I could update that if so desired. There hasn't been any flame wars on ktest either, so that could not be it. Maybe I could start a flame war with myself to get it more attention. Anyway, the pull request is here, hopefully that softside exists. https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/10/28/97 Thanks! -- Steve