From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] suspend: Cleanup calling of power off methods. Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:28:55 -0600 Message-ID: References: <20050921101855.GD25297@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: In-Reply-To: (Linus Torvalds's message of "Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:35:20 -0700 (PDT)") Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Pavel Machek , Andrew Morton , len.brown@intel.com, Pierre Ossman , acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, ncunningham@cyclades.com, Masoud Sharbiani , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds writes: > On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, Pavel Machek wrote: >> >> I think you are not following the proper procedure. All the patches >> should go through akpm. Ok. I thought it was fine to send simple and obviously correct bug fixes to Linus. > One issue is that I actually worry that Andrew will at some point be where > I was a couple of years ago - overworked and stressed out by just tons and > tons of patches. > > Yes, he's written/modified tons of patch-tracking tools, and the git > merging hopefully avoids some of the pressures, but it still worries me. > If Andrew burns out, we'll all suffer hugely. > > I'm wondering what we can do to offset those kinds of issues. I _do_ like > having -mm as a staging area and catching some problems there, so going > through andrew is wonderful in that sense, but it has downsides. It is especially challenging for people like me who typically work on parts of the kernel without a maintainer. So there frequently isn't an intermediate I can submit my patches to. Eric