From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 00:22:36 +0000
Subject: Re: rfc: trivial patches and slow deaths?
Message-Id: <1377044556.2016.102.camel@joe-AO722>
List-Id: <kernel-janitors.vger.kernel.org>
References: <1377043822.2737.86@driftwood>
In-Reply-To: <1377043822.2737.86@driftwood>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kernel-janitors <kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, 2013-08-20 at 19:10 -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> The important question is does he want to handle patches that you're  
> flipping out about not going in before the next merge window because  
> they are SO IMPORTANT that the trivial tree must promote them out of  
> sequence.

You're misreading.  I see no flipping out here.

I'm simply saying that obvious defects should be
corrected sooner rather than later.

I'm also saying that the trivial tree should
have some visibility about whether or not a
patch or series will be handled by the trivial
maintainer or not.

Jiri has not responded to this point.

Silence about the status of patches that extends
for months is not good.