From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
kvm-ppc <kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>,
Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>,
Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Subject: Re: Preparing kvm/next for first pull request of 3.15 merge window
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 20:35:06 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5331E87A.6050009@de.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5331BD09.6090806@redhat.com>
On 25/03/14 18:29, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've pushed the last set of updates to kvm/next for the 3.15 merge window. I don't expect any other changes for either x86 or s390 (thanks Christian!). The pull request is already pretty beefy.
>
> I would like to know from ARM and PPC maintainers *now* (before the merge window opens) what will be in 3.15. Also, PPC guys, please make sure the pull requests will be based on commit e724f080f5dd (KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Fix register usage when loading/saving VRSAVE, 2014-03-13).
>
> Also, the pull requests I got in the last couple of months were a bit messy, and I'm already fearing that Linus notices. In the future, I'll tag kvm-3.x-base (e.g. kvm-3.16-base) when I open kvm/next, and I will *reject* pull requests from submaintainers that include extra non-KVM commits without a very good reason.
Paolo,
can you clarify this statement? What are the dont do things: (I already checked one obvious answer)
[ ] I include non-kvm s390 patches (with a Maintainer ack from Martin or Heiko) which are required for other patches. These patches might even go via the s390 tree as well
[ ] My pull request is based on current kvm/next instead of kvm/next that was branched away after rc1
[X] My pull request is based on 3.x-rcy instead of kvm/next
[ ] My pull request is based on kvm/queue instead of kvm/next
[ ] other: .....
Or maybe: what is your preferred way of pull requests from submaintainers?
Thanks
Christian
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
kvm-ppc <kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>,
Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>,
Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Subject: Re: Preparing kvm/next for first pull request of 3.15 merge window
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 21:35:06 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5331E87A.6050009@de.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5331BD09.6090806@redhat.com>
On 25/03/14 18:29, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've pushed the last set of updates to kvm/next for the 3.15 merge window. I don't expect any other changes for either x86 or s390 (thanks Christian!). The pull request is already pretty beefy.
>
> I would like to know from ARM and PPC maintainers *now* (before the merge window opens) what will be in 3.15. Also, PPC guys, please make sure the pull requests will be based on commit e724f080f5dd (KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Fix register usage when loading/saving VRSAVE, 2014-03-13).
>
> Also, the pull requests I got in the last couple of months were a bit messy, and I'm already fearing that Linus notices. In the future, I'll tag kvm-3.x-base (e.g. kvm-3.16-base) when I open kvm/next, and I will *reject* pull requests from submaintainers that include extra non-KVM commits without a very good reason.
Paolo,
can you clarify this statement? What are the dont do things: (I already checked one obvious answer)
[ ] I include non-kvm s390 patches (with a Maintainer ack from Martin or Heiko) which are required for other patches. These patches might even go via the s390 tree as well
[ ] My pull request is based on current kvm/next instead of kvm/next that was branched away after rc1
[X] My pull request is based on 3.x-rcy instead of kvm/next
[ ] My pull request is based on kvm/queue instead of kvm/next
[ ] other: .....
Or maybe: what is your preferred way of pull requests from submaintainers?
Thanks
Christian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-03-25 20:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-03-25 17:29 Preparing kvm/next for first pull request of 3.15 merge window Paolo Bonzini
2014-03-25 17:29 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-03-25 18:33 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-03-25 18:33 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-03-25 20:35 ` Christian Borntraeger [this message]
2014-03-25 20:35 ` Christian Borntraeger
2014-03-26 9:32 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-03-26 9:32 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-03-26 3:51 ` Paul Mackerras
2014-03-26 3:51 ` Paul Mackerras
2014-03-26 9:19 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-03-26 9:19 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-03-26 10:32 ` Greg Kurz
2014-03-26 10:32 ` Greg Kurz
2014-03-26 11:46 ` Paul Mackerras
2014-03-26 11:46 ` Paul Mackerras
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=5331E87A.6050009@de.ibm.com \
--to=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=agraf@suse.de \
--cc=christoffer.dall@linaro.org \
--cc=kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=scottwood@freescale.com \
/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.