On 8 September 2015 at 14:04, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Dave, > > On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:01:21 +1000 Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Is this to be a regular thing? because I know I'd prefer to merge >> fixes than wait for -rc1 to be an accurate copy of linux-next. > > It happens when I can (almost) keep up with Linus' merge rate (often I > can't). It is not an issue and I agree that fixes should just be done > as/when needed. That is why I say "not judging, just noting" - I > generally don't have the time to figure out if each and every unseen > commit is a fix or new feature and/or if it has some possibility of > interacting with some other tree in a way that a few days in linux-next > may have flushed out. > > So, if you are happy with what you are doing (and you don't irritate > Linus), then I am happy (as long as you don't cause unnecessary extra > conflicts in linux-next :-)). > Maybe you could heuristic it by ratio new commits or new lines vs the total size of the -next tree. i.e. 59 commits in a 5000 commit tree is likely not that bad, 59 commits in a 20 commit tree would be bad. Though not sure how you'd tune it! Dave. _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
