* linux-next submission requirements (Was: [RFC PATCH] linker script: unify usage of discard definition) [not found] <4A4E9638.20304@kernel.org> @ 2009-07-04 1:34 ` Stephen Rothwell 2009-07-04 3:18 ` Tejun Heo 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2009-07-04 1:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tejun Heo; +Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel, linux-next [-- 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 --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next submission requirements (Was: [RFC PATCH] linker script: unify usage of discard definition) 2009-07-04 1:34 ` linux-next submission requirements (Was: [RFC PATCH] linker script: unify usage of discard definition) Stephen Rothwell @ 2009-07-04 3:18 ` Tejun Heo 2009-07-04 4:03 ` Stephen Rothwell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Tejun Heo @ 2009-07-04 3:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stephen Rothwell; +Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel, linux-next 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next submission requirements (Was: [RFC PATCH] linker script: unify usage of discard definition) 2009-07-04 3:18 ` Tejun Heo @ 2009-07-04 4:03 ` Stephen Rothwell 2009-07-04 4:07 ` Tejun Heo 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2009-07-04 4:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tejun Heo; +Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel, linux-next [-- 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 --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next submission requirements (Was: [RFC PATCH] linker script: unify usage of discard definition) 2009-07-04 4:03 ` Stephen Rothwell @ 2009-07-04 4:07 ` Tejun Heo 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Tejun Heo @ 2009-07-04 4:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stephen Rothwell; +Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel, linux-next 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-07-04 4:07 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <4A4E9638.20304@kernel.org>
2009-07-04 1:34 ` linux-next submission requirements (Was: [RFC PATCH] linker script: unify usage of discard definition) Stephen Rothwell
2009-07-04 3:18 ` Tejun Heo
2009-07-04 4:03 ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-07-04 4:07 ` Tejun Heo
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).