From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] scsi patch queue tree updated Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 04:34:04 -0700 Message-ID: <20140804113404.GA11377@infradead.org> References: <20140708134003.GA7790@infradead.org> <20140801122042.GA10771@infradead.org> <1406925121.2654.21.camel@jarvis> <20140804111147.GA29148@infradead.org> <20140804213059.32fd25d5@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140804213059.32fd25d5@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Christoph Hellwig , James Bottomley , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 09:30:59PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > You realise that neither of these in linux-next as the scsi-core and > scsi-drivers trees had for-3.16 branches in the last round. I assume I > should just drop these trees completely from linux-next? Well, they get pulled in through James, so you can drop them for now. I mostly put you on Cc so you could comment wether there are any hard rules on how long even those simple fixes should be in linux-next. I know you've put up stats for a few of the last merge windows about patches that weren't in linux-next, so there's been some tracking of it for sure.