Re: [PULL REQUEST] Please pull rdma.git

[Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1482 bytes --]

On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 06:11:22PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On 11/19/2016 2:46 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 4:01 AM, Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> On 11/17/2016 5:24 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > Are you going to comment on that to the submitter? if not, they are
> > going to continue with this practice.
>
> Comment on what to the submitter?  That the patch might not have been
> -rc material?  I would have been OK with it around rc1 or rc2, just not
> this late in the rc cycle.  In the end, I don't, nor can I, rely on
> submitters to determine what's RC material and what isn't, that's what
> I'm supposed to be doing.  I will always apply my own judgment on that
> issue and submitters will learn over time when their patches get skipped
> on any sort of a regular basis.

And I'm pretty fine with Doug's judgement regarding -rc vs. -next. Our
submission flow meets the expected by RDMA maintainer and we will
continue to work in the same mode as long it suits Doug's expectations
for acceptable/unacceptable submission.

>
> > How are we supposed to realize from patchworks + your github branches
> > that patches that were submitted for 4.9-rc are picked for 4.10? this
> > is very confusing and error prone too.
>
> I emailed the submitters off list about it and provided them a list of
> what patches went where and why.

Thank you, I compared the submitted list with found in your trees and
everything looks in place.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]