linux-next submission requirements (Was: [RFC PATCH] linker script: unify usage of discard definition)

linux-next submission requirements (Was: [RFC PATCH] linker script: unify usage of discard definition)

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1235 bytes --]

Hi Tejun,

[This is not aimed just at you ... this patch just gave me an
opportunity to point this out again.]

On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:37:28 +0900 Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> This patch is on top of the current percpu#for-next.
> 
>   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/percpu.git for-next
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> NOT_SIGNED_OFF_YET

Well, given no SOB and that this is a RFC patch, it should *not* be in a
branch that is pulled into linux-next.

This is what I send to any maintainer that submits a tree for linux-next
inclusion (and before anyone else points it out: this was not true early
on):

"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)

*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."

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: linux-next submission requirements (Was: [RFC PATCH] linker script: unify usage of discard definition)

[Tejun Heo]

Hello,

Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Tejun,
> 
> [This is not aimed just at you ... this patch just gave me an
> opportunity to point this out again.]
> 
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:37:28 +0900 Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
>> This patch is on top of the current percpu#for-next.
>>
>>   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/percpu.git for-next
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> NOT_SIGNED_OFF_YET
> 
> Well, given no SOB and that this is a RFC patch, it should *not* be in a
> branch that is pulled into linux-next.

It's not _in_ the branch.  It's on _top_ of the branch.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

Re: linux-next submission requirements (Was: [RFC PATCH] linker script: unify usage of discard definition)

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 499 bytes --]

Hi Tejun,

On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 12:18:02 +0900 Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > 
> > [This is not aimed just at you ... this patch just gave me an
> > opportunity to point this out again.]
>
> It's not _in_ the branch.  It's on _top_ of the branch.

Ah, sorry, I read that as "at the top of".  In that case, this is not
aimed at you at all :-)


-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: linux-next submission requirements (Was: [RFC PATCH] linker script: unify usage of discard definition)

[Tejun Heo]

Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Tejun,
> 
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 12:18:02 +0900 Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
>> Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> [This is not aimed just at you ... this patch just gave me an
>>> opportunity to point this out again.]
>> It's not _in_ the branch.  It's on _top_ of the branch.
> 
> Ah, sorry, I read that as "at the top of".  In that case, this is not
> aimed at you at all :-)

:-)

-- 
tejun