On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 02:13:26 -0400 "Brown, Len" <len.brown@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Andrew, > Thanks for forwarding this series to Linus. > > >btw, this is, by my count, the seventh time I've sent this patch. > > what is your point? That when someone sends someone else a patch, it's a request that it be merged. Or commented on. Or nacked-with-reason. Or acked. Or something. The sender doesn't expect or want zero response from seven attempts across three months! > > The first was on March 21. > > March 21st was the 1st day of the 2.6.17 integration window, > so unless this series deserved very little testing, it > missed 2.6.17 by definition. > > Also, I couldn't apply this patch series because it depended > on other changes in -mm. Yes, I should have Acked it for you. > However, when it didn't apply I stopped looking at it. The patch was against the current acpi devel tree. I always send patches against the recipient's tree. Perhaps there were earlier sent-to-you-also patches in that series upon which it had dependencies. > June 17th, 2.6.18 opened > > You send this series to Linus today. > So given the current process and the 8-week 2.6.17 cycle, > this patch made it into Linus' tree within days of the speed of light. > > I'm happy to work with you on improving the process. > I think I could have acked this one for you, but that > is about it. When I send you a patch, unless I specifically mark it as for-review or something then please treat is as a request to merge. Unless it's urgent (like a bugfix) then some action within a couple of weeks is fine. Action being merge, nack-with-reason, request-for-modification, please-merge-it-yourself etc. Something dispositive. Thanks. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
