From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756933AbaHHOl5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Aug 2014 10:41:57 -0400 Received: from gw-1.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.217]:43990 "EHLO pandora.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753974AbaHHOl4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Aug 2014 10:41:56 -0400 Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 15:41:37 +0100 From: Russell King - ARM Linux To: Jassi Brar Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Tetsuya Takinishi , Mollie Wu , Arnd Bergmann , Mark Brown , lkml , Andy Green , Grant Likely , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: Request to include Mailbox tree in linux-next Message-ID: <20140808144137.GE30282@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20140808142912.7bf68229@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 07:55:52PM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote: > On 8 August 2014 09:59, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi Jassi, > > > > On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 12:25:49 +0530 Jassi Brar wrote: > >> > >> The framework for Mailbox has undergone 10 revisions over the last > >> one year, which has garnered support in the form of 'Reviewed-by' and > >> 'looks good enough to be merged in this window' from people in the CC > >> list. > >> > >> Could you please add it to linux-next? > >> Tree: git://git.linaro.org/landing-teams/working/fujitsu/integration.git > >> Branch: mailbox-for-3.17 > >> Contact: Jassi Brar > > > > This is really late for v3.17. The purpose of linux-next is to > > discover interactions between trees before they are pulled into Linus' > > tree and to do some cross architecture build checking. Adding a tree > > during the merge window is not very helpful to that. > > > > However if this is really going to be merged by Linus before v3.17-rc1, > > I will add it on Monday, OK? > > > The patchset was deemed ready enough for this merge window. However > some late nitpicks and bikeshedding discussions ate time and my > confidence to send a pull request to Linus. If it wasn't in linux-next before the merge window, you shouldn't be thinking about sending it to Linus. Your changes may cause conflicts with other trees, which would be unknown - and to push it in during a merge window without it having been visible to others is quite unacceptable. As Stephen says, linux-next is there to find interactions between trees before the code hits during the merge window - so that people know what conflicts are likely, and what the resolutions to the conflicts should be. If your tree is not part of linux-next, then it's an unknown as far as everyone else is concerned. > Upon Mark's suggestion (and the right thing to do) I wanted the patchset > to live the cycle in linux-next. Yes, that's the right thing to do, but you sent the request at an inappropriate time. The correct time to send your request would be after 3.17-rc1 has been released, IOW after the current merge window is over. In general, kernel developers don't "remember" requests from one week to the next; instead, we much prefer people send their requests at the appropriate times in the development cycle. -- FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.5Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net.