On 2015/10/21 17:05, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2015-10-21 11:48, Panu Matilainen: >> On 10/21/2015 11:25 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>> 2015-10-20 21:34, Stephen Hemminger: >>>> Patch backlog is not getting better, now at 486. >>>> >>>> How can we break this logjam? >>>> Do I need to make a new "ready for merge" tree? >>> What would mean "ready for merge"? >>> A lot of patches are acked but do not compile or doc is missing. >> Well, isn't that one quite reasonable definition of being "ready"? >> - patch must be acked >> - patch must apply and compile (when relevant) >> - is appropriately documented (commit message style and all) > Yes. > Compilation must be tested with GCC and clang, as static and shared libraries > and for 32-bit and 64-bit targets. > Documented means good commit message and doc or release notes updated.
What about bug fix patches? Thanks, Michael >
