Re: [GIT PATCH] scsi bug fixes for 2.6.23-rc2

[Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>]

James Bottomley wrote:
> The initial bsg submit went via the block git tree ... which I believe
> you have in -mm.  We only started taking the updates via the scsi tree

Seven hours before you posted this, in 
<20070807001429.f8cb3b22.akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Andrew already 
noted it was not in -mm.

A trivial examination of the broken-out mm patches backs up the absence 
  of Jens' block tree, too.

So let's put this myth / bad assumption to rest, shall we?


> Yes ... particularly in large trees like SCSI, there's the maintainer
> "bugger if I don't mail it out now I don't get it in for another three
> months" factor.

That factor always exists.  It's not confined to SCSI or large trees. 
It's basic the nature of the merge window.  Nothing new or shocking here.


> bsg had actually been sitting in the block tree since 2.6.21, so it had
> followed the delayed merge rule ... it just seems that it didn't get
> enough integration testing in that six months.  This is what I consider

It didn't get integration testing, at least in part, because it did not 
hit our official pre-release tree.  Quoth Andrew:
> I pulled git-scsi-misc on July 19 and there was no bsg code in there at
> all.  I pulled again on July 20 and all the bsg code was in mainline.



> I don't disagree; my point is that bsg did follow this rule (in fact it

Evidence says otherwise.


> I wouldn't call bsg half baked ... it was very carefully matured.  There
> were just a few integration issues.

I wouldn't call bsg carefully matured, if in addition to not really 
gracing -mm with its presence, the userland API structure is still 
getting changes on July 29, 2007 (0c6a89ba640d28e1dcd7fd1a217d2cfb92ae4953).

	Jeff