From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932513Ab0JEJMp (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Oct 2010 05:12:45 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:54532 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932314Ab0JEJMn (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Oct 2010 05:12:43 -0400 Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 11:12:23 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Tejun Heo , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the lost-spurious-irq tree with the tip tree Message-ID: <20101005091223.GA16005@elte.hu> References: <20101005141334.6a0f15fd.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <4CAABC0E.3030700@kernel.org> <20101005063227.GB12267@elte.hu> <20101005174524.b62d14a1.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20101005070123.GF12267@elte.hu> <20101005193803.e805b3eb.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101005193803.e805b3eb.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Ingo, > > On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 09:01:23 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > Fortunately there's a really simple solution: wait for an explicit > > reply from a maintainer before adding a new-feature tree. (Solicite > > again via a To: email if the Cc: went unanswered by the > > maintainers.) > > Sure we can try that. Thanks. > > Could you please start using that method for all subsystems i > > co-maintain? > > So, to be clear, from the MAINTAINERS file that would be LOCKDEP AND > LOCKSTAT, PERFORMANCE EVENTS SUBSYSTEM, SCHEDULER, TRACING, and X86 > ARCHITECTURE. [...] Yep - those are the main ones. ( You might want to apply the process generally as well - it's rather rare that trees parallel to maintainer trees get added to linux-next and IMO it pays to make sure the maintainers are actively fine with such additions. A Cc: to a mail with no patch content is easy to miss and it's useful to solicit a 'yeah, sure it's fine' mail from a maintainer - just like we solicit Acked-by's from maintainers for much smaller matters than full trees (individual patches). This would further ensure that linux-next is indeed a stable approximation of the 'next Linux' as intended by maintainers. To me this looks like a pretty obvious and useful thing to do. ) Thanks, Ingo