From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: Request for linux-next inclusion of the voyager tree Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 08:49:19 -0500 Message-ID: <1244555359.4137.10.camel@mulgrave.site> References: <1244477423.4079.228.camel@mulgrave.site> <20090609194515.7a1adebd.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:55532 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759849AbZFINtV (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jun 2009 09:49:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090609194515.7a1adebd.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 19:45 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi James, > > On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 11:10:23 -0500 James Bottomley wrote: > > > > Could you add this (as a postmerge tree) somewhere after the x86 trees, > > please (it depends on the auto-x86-next branch). > > > > I'll be sending the pull request for it to Linus somewhere in the next > > merge window (probably towards the end) and if he takes it, linux-next > > inclusion for a small number of patches it contains will probably be a > > recurring feature. > > > > The tree is at: > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jejb/voyager-2.6.git#master > > I added it near the end for today (but see my other emails for the > results). I will move it up just after the x86 tree tomorrow and hope > for better results. > > (You have seen the following before, this is just for "form") > > What I tell everyone: all patches/commits in the tree/series must > have been: > > posted to a relevant mailing list > reviewed > unit tested > destined for the next merge window (or the current release) Check on all of those. > *before* they are included. The linux-next tree is for integration > testing and to lower the impact of conflicts between subsystems in the > next merge window. > > Basically, this should be just what you would send to Linus (or ask him > to fetch). It is allowed to be rebased if you deem it necessary. Right ... what I really need is wider build testing of the pieces I can't check easily here (especially random configuration testing). I'm just trying to set up a build env for the 64 bit failure now. Thanks, James