Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.21

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:55:40 +1100
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org> wrote:

> Andrew Morton writes:
> 
> > Once a subsystem has a subsystem tree (git or quilt) I basically never
> > merge anything which belongs to that tree.  It's always
> > 
> > 	originator->mm->subsystemtree->Linus
> > 
> > If the subsystem tree maintainer wants to tell me "I can't be bothered
> > setting up a git pull for that, please merge it for me" then that's fine.
> > 
> > But unless I'm told that, or unless the maintainer is vacationing or totally
> > asleep or unless the fix has some sufficiently high obviousness*importance product,
> > I'll just keep buffering it up.  
> 
> What about the sort of thing that crosses all archs?  For example, the
> local_t changes?  Particularly in the case where the change has to be
> made in generic code and in all archs at the same time, it makes sense
> to me for you to send the whole batch to Linus at the same time,
> rather than individual arch maintainers all sending their bit at
> varying times.
> 

yup.  It's better of course if the changes aren't both-way dependent and
often we do it that way.  But if they really are that bound together then
I'll stage the patch in -mm, ensure that it doesn't conflict with any
queued-up arch patches and will merge it after the arch trees have gone in.