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/
