* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Ingo, > > On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 09:01:23 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Fortunately there's a really simple solution: wait for an explicit > > reply from a maintainer before adding a new-feature tree. (Solicite > > again via a To: email if the Cc: went unanswered by the > > maintainers.) > > Sure we can try that. Thanks. > > Could you please start using that method for all subsystems i > > co-maintain? > > So, to be clear, from the MAINTAINERS file that would be LOCKDEP AND > LOCKSTAT, PERFORMANCE EVENTS SUBSYSTEM, SCHEDULER, TRACING, and X86 > ARCHITECTURE. [...] Yep - those are the main ones. ( You might want to apply the process generally as well - it's rather rare that trees parallel to maintainer trees get added to linux-next and IMO it pays to make sure the maintainers are actively fine with such additions. A Cc: to a mail with no patch content is easy to miss and it's useful to solicit a 'yeah, sure it's fine' mail from a maintainer - just like we solicit Acked-by's from maintainers for much smaller matters than full trees (individual patches). This would further ensure that linux-next is indeed a stable approximation of the 'next Linux' as intended by maintainers. To me this looks like a pretty obvious and useful thing to do. ) Thanks, Ingo -- 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
