On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 11:43 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 19:33 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > We should at least -try- to follow the > > process we've defined, don't you think ? > > So you're saying -next should include whole new subsystems even though > its not clear they will be merged? Maybe yes. And if there's some debate as to whether it should be merged or not, maybe Linus should make the decision, let -next carry it for a few days to iron out those problems, and -then- merge it. > That'll invariably create the opposite case where a tree doesn't get > pulled and breaks bits due to its absence. > > -next does a great job of sorting the existing subsystem trees, but I > don't think its Stephens job to decide if things will get merged. No, it's not, but then, maybe Linus could play the game and -tell- us whether he intend to merge or not at least a few days in advance :-) > Therefore when things are in limbo (there was no definite ACK from Linus > on perf counters) both inclusion and exclusion from -next can lead to > trouble. Well, Linus did ACK by merging :-) So he should have been able to give that ack a few days in advance too.. Cheers, Ben. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
