From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [GIT PATCH] scsi bug fixes for 2.6.23-rc2 Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:11:13 -0400 Message-ID: <46B88B91.4050703@garzik.org> References: <1186248703.3439.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1186458941.6637.44.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070807001429.f8cb3b22.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1186496712.3414.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:44871 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752831AbXHGPLQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Aug 2007 11:11:16 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1186496712.3414.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , linux-scsi , linux-kernel 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