On Wed, 30 Sep 2015, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 03:29:32PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > I see that your tree is 8 days old, so this may have been resolved > > already, but would you be kind enough to ensure you remove the 6th > > (ARM) patch from your repo please? I wouldn't want it to cause > > conflicts and for Maxime and yourself to get shouted at by Linus. > > I prefer not to merge patches that cannot be tested. Without > the DT bits in patch 6 the other five patches are useless. So > I think patch 6 should be applied together with the other five > which add the driver. That's crazy talk. If all subsystem maintainers abide by this rule there would be chaos. We'd either need to send pull-requests to each other for every set which crossed a subsystems boundary, or 1000's of merge conflicts would ensue at merge time. The (sensible) rule we normally stick to is; as long as there isn't a _build_ dependency, then the patches should filter though their respective trees; _functional_ dependencies have nothing to do with us as maintainers. Another chaos preventing rule we abide by is; thou shalt not apply patches belonging to other maintainer's subsystems without the appropriate Ack-by and a subsequent "you may take this though your tree" and/or "please send me an immutable pull-request". > Of course if Linus wants me to revert patch 6 in case of any > potential conflicts with Maxime's tree I'll do that. Linus? Why bother Linus? The whole purpose of this is to _not_ pi$$ him off. This stuff is common sense. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
