From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.osdl.org (smtp.osdl.org [65.172.181.4]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.osdl.org", Issuer "OSDL Hostmaster" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CF83686AD for ; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:00:39 +1100 (EST) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 22:00:22 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Message-Id: <20051109220022.264437f8.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <1131601224.24637.155.camel@gaston> References: <20051109072228.GA7983@pb15.lixom.net> <1131526855.24637.67.camel@gaston> <20051109213837.47c8dce7.akpm@osdl.org> <1131601224.24637.155.camel@gaston> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ppc: add support for new powerbooks List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > > I don't think I'm adding much value handling ppc/ppc64 patches, really. > > I'd prefer to get out of that business. > > > > It would be better to have an arch maintainer who runs a git tree, same as > > ia64, arm, etc. > > > > And, given the amount of shared infrastructure, I suspect it would have to > > be a single git tree for both architectures. > > > > I'd still sweep up random ppc patches, but those will go into mainline via the > > originator->mm->git-powerpc->linus route. > > > > Possible? > > Well, I'm personally no fan of the git route as it causes us to have > less review on the list imho Well yes, that's a generic problem with subsystem trees. I suppose one could enforce processes which prevent it from happening. > (too easy also for me to just bounce a > patch to paulus to shove in his git tree :) though that's what I've been > doing for the last few days at least. But if you prefer that way, yes, > it's certainly possible. OK, well please think about it. It's not a ton of work at this end at present, but a) you lazy bums don't ack most of the things I cc you on, so it's rather open-loop and I don't know whether I'm merging wrong patches and b) there's now increasing potential for patches in -mm to clash with patches in Paul's git tree. The latter can be solved easily enough: I add Paul's git tree to the -mm lineup. Gimme.