From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [18.85.46.34]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bilbo.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EFC1B720C for ; Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:43:21 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: linux-next: origin tree build failure From: Peter Zijlstra To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt In-Reply-To: <1244799197.7172.106.camel@pasglop> References: <20090612102427.32582baa.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <1244768406.7172.1.camel@pasglop> <20090612092054.GB32052@elte.hu> <1244799197.7172.106.camel@pasglop> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:43:06 +0200 Message-Id: <1244799786.6691.1133.camel@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Stephen Rothwell , ppc-dev , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, paulus@samba.org, Ingo Molnar , Linus List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 19:33 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > We should at least -try- to follow the > process we've defined, don't you think ? So you're saying -next should include whole new subsystems even though its not clear they will be merged? That'll invariably create the opposite case where a tree doesn't get pulled and breaks bits due to its absence. -next does a great job of sorting the existing subsystem trees, but I don't think its Stephens job to decide if things will get merged. Therefore when things are in limbo (there was no definite ACK from Linus on perf counters) both inclusion and exclusion from -next can lead to trouble.