SCSI "staging" tree for linux-next?

SCSI "staging" tree for linux-next?

[Christoph Hellwig]

Hi James,

we're past -rc5 and no SCSI patches have been collected for 3.16 yet,
despite a lot of patches including a lot of reviewed ones pending on the
list.

I'd really love to get at least some testing for all the work that
sometimes has been pending for months in linux-next and would offer to
put together a tree of reviewed patches for linux-next.  Is this fine
with you?

Cheers,
	Christoph

Re: SCSI "staging" tree for linux-next?

[Hannes Reinecke]

On 05/15/2014 07:26 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> we're past -rc5 and no SCSI patches have been collected for 3.16 yet,
> despite a lot of patches including a lot of reviewed ones pending on the
> list.
>
> I'd really love to get at least some testing for all the work that
> sometimes has been pending for months in linux-next and would offer to
> put together a tree of reviewed patches for linux-next.  Is this fine
> with you?
>
Seconded. Having a staging tree would make my life _so_ much easier.

Cheers,

Hannes
-- 
Dr. Hannes Reinecke		      zSeries & Storage
hare@suse.de			      +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: J. Hawn, J. Guild, F. Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)

Re: SCSI "staging" tree for linux-next?

[Nicholas A. Bellinger]

On Fri, 2014-05-16 at 15:38 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 05/15/2014 07:26 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Hi James,
> >
> > we're past -rc5 and no SCSI patches have been collected for 3.16 yet,
> > despite a lot of patches including a lot of reviewed ones pending on the
> > list.
> >
> > I'd really love to get at least some testing for all the work that
> > sometimes has been pending for months in linux-next and would offer to
> > put together a tree of reviewed patches for linux-next.  Is this fine
> > with you?
> >
> Seconded. Having a staging tree would make my life _so_ much easier.
> 

+1.  I thought this was already agreed upon at LSF anyways..?

--nab

Re: SCSI "staging" tree for linux-next?

[James Bottomley]

On Fri, 2014-05-16 at 15:38 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 05/15/2014 07:26 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Hi James,
> >
> > we're past -rc5 and no SCSI patches have been collected for 3.16 yet,
> > despite a lot of patches including a lot of reviewed ones pending on the
> > list.
> >
> > I'd really love to get at least some testing for all the work that
> > sometimes has been pending for months in linux-next and would offer to
> > put together a tree of reviewed patches for linux-next.  Is this fine
> > with you?
> >
> Seconded. Having a staging tree would make my life _so_ much easier.

OK, I think we can do this easily.  Send me your staging branches and
I'll pull them into a global staging branch and merge it with for-next
in linux-scsi ... this will ensure we don't get yelled at for duplicate
commits causing merge rejections in linux-next.  Since staging will be
volatile and for the purposes of testing patches on upstream track, we
don't need signed tags or anything.

James

Re: SCSI "staging" tree for linux-next?

[James Bottomley]

On Fri, 2014-05-16 at 15:01 -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-05-16 at 15:38 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> > On 05/15/2014 07:26 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Hi James,
> > >
> > > we're past -rc5 and no SCSI patches have been collected for 3.16 yet,
> > > despite a lot of patches including a lot of reviewed ones pending on the
> > > list.
> > >
> > > I'd really love to get at least some testing for all the work that
> > > sometimes has been pending for months in linux-next and would offer to
> > > put together a tree of reviewed patches for linux-next.  Is this fine
> > > with you?
> > >
> > Seconded. Having a staging tree would make my life _so_ much easier.
> 
> OK, I think we can do this easily.  Send me your staging branches and
> I'll pull them into a global staging branch and merge it with for-next
> in linux-scsi ... this will ensure we don't get yelled at for duplicate
> commits causing merge rejections in linux-next.  Since staging will be
> volatile and for the purposes of testing patches on upstream track, we
> don't need signed tags or anything.

Ping ... Git URL, anyone?

I thought this was something you really wanted and an essential
component to making your lives easier?

Like I said, just the URL will work for a staging tree, I don't need
signed tags or commit descriptions ... although if testing by next or
Fengguang shows fatal problems, I'll drop the branch.

James