On 09/30/2015 04:28 PM, Herbert Xu wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 03:15:39PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
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".
So you want the series to be merged in two parts via two different
trees where neither can be tested? That sounds crazy to me.
Yes, that's what we want, and that's how people work usually.
I will repeat what Lee was saying, what we have to ensure as maintainer
is that our tree is building.
We will be able to test it with linux-next.
Regards,
Maxime
--
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
