On 21/10/04 11:56AM, Sean Paul wrote:
> @Fernando, hopefully you can revise and post again. Thank you for your patches
> and your effort!
No problem :)
Just to be sure I do the right thing this time (and to better understand the
process), please confirm that this is the correct sequence of events:
1. I fix the lock issue and test on my local machine.
2. I then post this new patch set (v3) rebased on top of drm-tip (instead of
drm-next). This will automatically trigger tests on intel hardware (and
maybe in other hardwares?)
NOTE: I originally chose drm-next because that's what is mentioned here:
https://01.org/linuxgraphics/gfx-docs/drm/gpu/introduction.html#contribution-process
Maybe this doc should be updated?
3. Once reviewed and approved, someone (Sean?) merges them into "somewhere"
(drm-next? drm-misc-next? drm-intel-next? How is this decided?).
4. Eventually, that other branch from the previous point is merged into
drm-tip.
5. ??
6. The branch is merged into linux-next.
There must be something wrong in my description above, as it doesn't make sense
to post the patch series based on "drm-tip" only to later have one of the
mainteiners merge them into a different branch that will eventually be merged
back into "drm-tip".
Sorry for being completely lost! Is there a document explaining how all of this
works so that I can learn for the next time?
Thanks!
