Re: merge status

[Andrew Morton]

Con Kolivas <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 10:01 am, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > it's my contributors who drop me in it
> > > by leaving their patch sets until you declare a kernel, dumping the
> > > integration testing on me in whatever time window is left.
> >
> > Yes, I think I'm noticing an uptick in patches as soon as a kernel is
> > released.
> >
> > It's a bit irritating, and is unexpected (here, at least).  I guess people
> > like to hold onto their work for as long as possible so when they release
> > it, it's in the best possible shape.
> 
> I suspect part of that is the concern about whether the code will merge with 
> whatever -mm looks like next. Of course you already do ludicrous amounts of 
> merging, but sometimes you'll just throw it back and say "too many rejects".

Well of course that's not a concern for people who work against the git
trees - scsi/usb/ia64/whatever developers.

But yes, sometimes people's work does clash just too much with things which
are already in subsystem trees or in -mm.  Fortunately it's relatively
rare, and I do think it's best to ask people to develop against latest
-linus rather than against a crazy -mmoving target.

Especially as lots of people are stuck using git, rather than high-tech
patch management technologies ;)


Actually, I disagree with you - it's at 2.6.x release-time that all trees,
including -mm are at their most divergent.  Presumably these developers are
working against the relevant subsystem git tree, and hence can merge into
the subsystem maintainer at any time.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/