From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tomas Henzl Subject: Re: [TOPIC] scsi-queue tree past and future Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 13:37:05 +0100 Message-ID: <54FEE571.6020909@redhat.com> References: <20150305133118.GA16575@lst.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:36772 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751708AbbCJMhL (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Mar 2015 08:37:11 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20150305133118.GA16575@lst.de> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig , lsf@lists.linux-foundation.org, lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On 03/05/2015 02:31 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > For about 8 month I've merged almost every scsi commit through the > scsi-queue staging tree, and it seems to have worked out well enough. >>From my user perspective the scsi-queue was an important help and have been using using it a lot. I hope it will have a future. Thanks, Tomas > > I've been too busy for the next cycle, so 4.1 will probably have to live > without it. I'd like to get feedback on how the tree worked for contributors > and driver maintainers, and brainstorm how to move forward with it, preferably > some form of real team maintainance that avoids single points of failure. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html