From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753982Ab0FATzh (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Jun 2010 15:55:37 -0400 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:39474 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752416Ab0FATzg (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Jun 2010 15:55:36 -0400 Message-ID: <4C0565AC.8020205@suse.cz> Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 21:55:24 +0200 From: Michal Marek User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linus Torvalds Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, a.beregalov@gmail.com, andi@firstfloor.org, dzickus@redhat.com, fejes@joco.name, g.liakhovetski@gmx.de, gthelen@google.com, hschauhan@nulltrace.org, hui.zhu@windriver.com, jan3sobi3ski@gmail.com, jay@goldhive.com, jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com, jkacur@redhat.com, joe@perches.com, kirr@mns.spb.ru, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, nir.tzachar@gmail.com, rabin@rab.in, rientjes@google.com, roland@redhat.com, saalwaechter@gmail.com, shemminger@vyatta.com, tabbott@ksplice.com, u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de, vbendeb@google.com, vda.linux@googlemail.com, wuzhangjin@gmail.com, xt28@gmx.de Subject: Re: [GIT] kbuild changes for 2.6.35 References: <20100527144459.GA14513@sepie.suse.cz> <20100531120223.GA11700@sepie.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 1.6.2010 17:32, Linus Torvalds wrote: > No, the commits themselves are likely fine, although for the future it > really would be good to make things like that more descriptive. I just > want people to try to argue for _why_ I should do a pull, and _what_ I'm > getting in their "please pull" thing. > > It's not always necessary, and some people do it better than others. For > an example of a really good pull request, look at the ones David Miller > sends me for networking - they explain what's going on in the pull, so > it's always easy to pull them because just the request makes me feel like > David is really on top of things, and lets me have some 30'000 ft overview > of what's going on. OK, I'll try to do better job next time. I'm also going to use different branches for kbuild / kconfig / trivial stuff like .gitignore / etc from now on, so that you don't get a all-or-nothing pull request in the next merge window (something that Sam suggested). > At the same time, in many cases I obviously pull _without_ any kind of > real explanation - and that tends to be especially true with maintainers > that I've worked with for a long time, or areas that are so specialized > that they are almost self-explanatory (let's be honest: when a filesystem > maintainer asks me to pull their special filesystem, I'm perfectly happy > with the overview of "30 changesets to XFS", and there's no need for much > explanation, although a rough overview of what's been going on is always > good to see). > > So the reason I ask for explanations for kbuild is that not only have we > had different maintainers, it's an area that affects a lot of different > things and has historically had issues with odd architectures or old > binutils tools etc. I see. Thanks a lot for pulling the changes now. Michal