From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>,
linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, ben-linux@fluff.org,
'Olof Johansson' <olof@lixom.net>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Samsung devel for v3.3
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 20:13:54 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201201102013.54958.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120110184643.GF7164@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
On Tuesday 10 January 2012, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 01:44:54PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Jan 2012, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > So, is there anything that people like me who are contributing to rather
> > > than maintaining things can do to help here beyond chasing maintainers?
>
> > Maybe the Samsung maintainer(s) should target early merge into the
> > arm-soc tree instead of going straight to linux-next only. The former
> > ends up in the later anyway.
>
> That sounds like it'd be helpful overall but it's something that has to
> be sorted out at the maintainer level. I'm guessing there's not really
> much that contributors can do here?
I think you did everything as good as you could, we just need to routinely
call for everyone to submit stuff in time. A number of maintainers sent stuff
after Christmas (which I expected to start the merge window) and were mostly
lucky because Linus gave us an extra 10 days to sort things out.
The most reliable way improve things is pressure from upstream. We used to
have a lot of problems with omap until Linus complained loudly and the omap
merges are working completely flawless now process-wise. In the last few
releases I pushed back on substandard at91 patches and that also turned out
really well for 3.3. This time, the samsung and pxa patches were sticking
out as being worse than the others, so that's where the pushback went and
I'm sure it will work better in the future. PXA made it in in the
end, samsung also did for the most part but not entirely and you were
unfortunate to be the contributor of the patches that missed out.
Note that we're also constantly raising the bar with our expectations here,
and we have to, in order to keep up with increasing complexity and
increasing numbers of patches getting submitted. I think overall we're
doing fine, and occasionally letting good patches get delayed by one
release is the price we have to pay, even when it hurts an individual
contributor.
Arnd
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [GIT PULL] Samsung devel for v3.3
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 20:13:54 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201201102013.54958.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120110184643.GF7164@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
On Tuesday 10 January 2012, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 01:44:54PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Jan 2012, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > So, is there anything that people like me who are contributing to rather
> > > than maintaining things can do to help here beyond chasing maintainers?
>
> > Maybe the Samsung maintainer(s) should target early merge into the
> > arm-soc tree instead of going straight to linux-next only. The former
> > ends up in the later anyway.
>
> That sounds like it'd be helpful overall but it's something that has to
> be sorted out at the maintainer level. I'm guessing there's not really
> much that contributors can do here?
I think you did everything as good as you could, we just need to routinely
call for everyone to submit stuff in time. A number of maintainers sent stuff
after Christmas (which I expected to start the merge window) and were mostly
lucky because Linus gave us an extra 10 days to sort things out.
The most reliable way improve things is pressure from upstream. We used to
have a lot of problems with omap until Linus complained loudly and the omap
merges are working completely flawless now process-wise. In the last few
releases I pushed back on substandard at91 patches and that also turned out
really well for 3.3. This time, the samsung and pxa patches were sticking
out as being worse than the others, so that's where the pushback went and
I'm sure it will work better in the future. PXA made it in in the
end, samsung also did for the most part but not entirely and you were
unfortunate to be the contributor of the patches that missed out.
Note that we're also constantly raising the bar with our expectations here,
and we have to, in order to keep up with increasing complexity and
increasing numbers of patches getting submitted. I think overall we're
doing fine, and occasionally letting good patches get delayed by one
release is the price we have to pay, even when it hurts an individual
contributor.
Arnd
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-10 20:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-01-03 23:33 [GIT PULL] Samsung devel for v3.3 Kukjin Kim
2012-01-03 23:33 ` Kukjin Kim
2012-01-06 21:58 ` Olof Johansson
2012-01-06 21:58 ` Olof Johansson
2012-01-07 10:09 ` Kukjin Kim
2012-01-07 10:09 ` Kukjin Kim
2012-01-08 20:49 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-08 20:49 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-09 1:21 ` Olof Johansson
2012-01-09 1:21 ` Olof Johansson
2012-01-09 1:40 ` Kukjin Kim
2012-01-09 1:40 ` Kukjin Kim
2012-01-09 2:03 ` Olof Johansson
2012-01-09 2:03 ` Olof Johansson
2012-01-09 15:56 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-01-09 15:56 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-01-09 16:11 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-09 16:11 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-10 9:06 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-01-10 9:06 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-01-10 18:31 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-10 18:31 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-10 18:44 ` Nicolas Pitre
2012-01-10 18:44 ` Nicolas Pitre
2012-01-10 18:46 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-10 18:46 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-10 19:00 ` Nicolas Pitre
2012-01-10 19:00 ` Nicolas Pitre
2012-01-10 20:13 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2012-01-10 20:13 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-01-10 22:37 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-10 22:37 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-11 0:11 ` Olof Johansson
2012-01-11 0:11 ` Olof Johansson
2012-01-11 6:39 ` Kukjin Kim
2012-01-11 6:39 ` Kukjin Kim
2012-01-11 16:19 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-01-11 16:19 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-01-11 16:50 ` Olof Johansson
2012-01-11 16:50 ` Olof Johansson
2012-01-11 17:29 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-11 17:29 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-11 6:20 ` Kukjin Kim
2012-01-11 6:20 ` Kukjin Kim
2012-01-09 8:26 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-09 8:26 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-17 6:40 ` Olof Johansson
2012-01-17 6:40 ` Olof Johansson
2012-01-17 7:23 ` Kukjin Kim
2012-01-17 7:23 ` Kukjin Kim
2012-01-17 7:24 ` Olof Johansson
2012-01-17 7:24 ` Olof Johansson
2012-01-17 10:53 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-17 10:53 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-09 9:58 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-01-09 9:58 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-01-09 23:24 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-09 23:24 ` Mark Brown
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201201102013.54958.arnd@arndb.de \
--to=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=ben-linux@fluff.org \
--cc=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=kgene.kim@samsung.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=nico@fluxnic.net \
--cc=olof@lixom.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.