From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Preparing kvm/next for first pull request of 3.15 merge window
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 21:35:06 +0100
Message-ID: <5331E87A.6050009@de.ibm.com>
References: <5331BD09.6090806@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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>
Return-path: <kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <5331BD09.6090806@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

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