Re: Latest for-4.14

Leon Romanovsky
2017-07-28T19:29:30Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3611 bytes --]

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:54:56PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-07-28 at 07:32 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 02:34:57PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> > > On 7/26/2017 9:03 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 08:24:44AM -0400, Dennis Dalessandro
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On 7/26/2017 1:37 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > > > Reply to: "Re: [PATCH for-next 7/9] IB/core: Allow QP state
> > > > > > transition from reset to error"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 09:14:02AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> > > > > > > On 7/23/2017 9:04 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > BTW, when will you post for-4.14 branch so we will be
> > > > > > > > able to base our
> > > > > > > > submission queue for the -next?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tomorrow. I wanted to base it on 4.13-rc2 so it would get
> > > > > > > all of the
> > > > > > > fixes that went in this week.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any news on the matter?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Check Doug's GitHub, I see a 4.13-rc2 based "for-next" branch
> > > > > there.
> > > >
> > > > Are you referring to this branch?
> > > > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/compare/master...dledford:k.o/f
> > > > or-next
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't have most of mlx5/mlx4/cavium/core/e.t.c features.
> > >
> > > Oh, and I never said I would be *done* processing the for-next area
> > > all
> > > in one go. You said you wanted regular progress and updates, and
> > > the
> > > branch I have represents that. But regular progress does not mean
> > > take
> > > everything all at once. As I process more patchsets, more will be
> > > added.
> > >
> >
> > Regular sharing of information is also part of regular progress.
>
> Yes it is. And there is a specific order to when maintainers share
> information: when the code lands at k.o (or wherever that maintainer's
> official repo is located), the maintainer notifies the author that the
> code has been accepted (except Linus, who tends to take pull requests
> without response unless there is something wrong with it). That's the
> standard process. I'm following it. I didn't get my successful 0day
> result on the merged up branch until this morning, at which point I
> pushed my branch to k.o, so today is "email everyone and update
> patchworks" day. You had access to my github repo where you could have
> clearly seen what I was working on, but I guess you were just too busy
> tapping your finger and waiting on an email to check it. That's your
> problem, not mine. I don't know of any maintainers that email people
> about their code while it's still being processed and before it has
> officially landed in their repo (unless there are review issues or
> build failures that kick it back out), so I don't know why you would
> expect different from me, but it's not gonna happen.

I didn't expect anything different from you. What I expected from you is
to take a look on one patchset, decide go/no go, add to your branch, push
to github and 0-build (it very good in queuing jobs), announce and so on
till all patches are tested and it can be forwarded to k.o.

Sorry, if I expected too much.

>
> > As I said more than once, I'm fine with sequential work, I'm fine
> > with
> > the fact that not all my code is accepted, I'm fine with scheduled
> > delays, but I'm not fine with silence.
>
>
>
> --
> Doug Ledford <dledford-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> GPG KeyID: B826A3330E572FDD
> Key fingerprint = AE6B 1BDA 122B 23B4 265B 1274 B826 A333 0E57 2FDD
>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]