From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752784AbaHDOUJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Aug 2014 10:20:09 -0400 Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:56284 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752706AbaHDOUG (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Aug 2014 10:20:06 -0400 Message-ID: <1407162004.4243.1.camel@jarvis.lan> Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] scsi patch queue tree updated From: James Bottomley To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Stephen Rothwell Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 07:20:04 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20140804111147.GA29148@infradead.org> References: <20140708134003.GA7790@infradead.org> <20140801122042.GA10771@infradead.org> <1406925121.2654.21.camel@jarvis> <20140804111147.GA29148@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2014-08-04 at 04:11 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 04:32:01PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Fri, 2014-08-01 at 05:20 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > I've pushed out updates to both the core-for-3.17 and drivers-for-3.17 > > > branches. > > > > So I'm afraid we missed the last -next build on these, so they can't go > > in with the early SCSI pull. I'm open to doing one mid merge window, > > but Linus tends not to like that. > > I don't think there are any hard and fast rules. True, but the hardest of our semi-liquid rules is nothing in the merge window that wasn't in -next first. > The core-for-3.17 commit is a trivial printk specifier regression fix for > something introduced in the 3.17 merge window, so pulling it in is > an absolute non-brainer. > > The drivers side are a bunch of smaller fixes for iscsi and pm8001 which > never have been a problem to put in near the end of the merge window, > especially if they have a few more days linux-next exposure in > Linux-next even after the 3.16 release. They absolutely would be > candidates for a second pull even if they'd miss the first pull. OK, since I have to do a second pull anyway we might as well follow the rules. James