From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [PATCH] serial/arc-uart: Urgent DT related update Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 09:23:04 -0800 Message-ID: <20130214172304.GA29021@kroah.com> References: <201302090928.43929.arnd@arndb.de> <1360572101-12744-1-git-send-email-vgupta@synopsys.com> <511B88F8.6010907@synopsys.com> <20130213163833.GA3465@kroah.com> <511C7C38.7030009@synopsys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-pb0-f47.google.com ([209.85.160.47]:64896 "EHLO mail-pb0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932434Ab3BNRXH (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Feb 2013 12:23:07 -0500 Received: by mail-pb0-f47.google.com with SMTP id rp2so241509pbb.6 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 09:23:06 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <511C7C38.7030009@synopsys.com> Sender: linux-serial-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org To: Vineet Gupta Cc: Grant Likely , Arnd Bergmann , linux-serial@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:25:04AM +0530, Vineet Gupta wrote: > > I've taken this now, it will be sent to Linus for 3.9-rc1. > > Thanks greg. I understand the tree closing rules' purpose, to let things stabilize > ahead of merge window - both from mechanical conflicts perspective as well as > runtime conflicts. However I'm slightly confused here about the process, specially > as a n00b maintainer and was hoping you could clarify it. > > Your announcement of Feb 9th said > > >With the release of the 3.8-rc7 kernel, I think it's time to close the > >TTY/serial tree for new features / cleanups for 3.9. So I'm closing my > >tree, and will only be applying obvious bugfixes or regressions to it > >until 3.9-rc1 comes out. > > So a bug fix sent on say Feb 11th would have been be applied to your tree to end > up in 3.9 merge-window pull to Linus- correct or no ? Yes. > So in that sense, since Arnd/Grant are deeming this patch as bug fix, > shouldn't it make into 3.9 merge-window merge. Yes, and that is where it will be, as I said so above. > So maybe, it's the criticality of the bug which warrants that. Please > note that I'm just trying to understand the process here and not > arguing about patch itself. > > >You can keep sending me patches for the tree that don't fit the "bugfix" > >category, but note that I'll be storing them away to wait for 3.9-rc1 > >comes out, which might be a few weeks, so please be patient. > > And once 3.9-rc1 hits, everything becomes 3.10 merge material anyways > except for bug fixes. Yes. Hope this helps, greg k-h