From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752687AbaLMRrE (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Dec 2014 12:47:04 -0500 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:56671 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751860AbaLMRq4 (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Dec 2014 12:46:56 -0500 Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2014 18:46:52 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov To: One Thousand Gnomes Cc: Thomas Gleixner , LKML , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: Maintainer abuse Message-ID: <20141213174652.GD29934@pd.tnic> References: <20141212234336.GA28451@pd.tnic> <20141213135231.5684cf9d@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141213135231.5684cf9d@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 01:52:31PM +0000, One Thousand Gnomes wrote: ... > It could then be integrated into git (if only so we can have a "git lost" > command to block annoying sources) All sounds nice and good but I'd be fine with people adhering to the one-week feedback gather rule and not sending patchsets during the merge window, for starters. I think those two will get us pretty far. > 2. Is X86 moving at a rate which needs some additional maintainers to > "maintain" the pending queue during merge windows and the like, and get > stuff into order for the maintainers proper ? Yep, no patches during the merge window should be a good start. The rest of the time x86 actually scales pretty fine IMO. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine. --