[ Forward to linux-next ML ] Damn, I should do what I preach (pah and top-posting)! - Sedat - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 3:46 PM Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: Fix recursive Kconfig dependency To: Peter HÃwe <PeterHuewe@xxxxxx> Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>, Corentin Chary <corentin.chary@xxxxxxxxx>, Matthew Garrett <mjg@xxxxxxxxxx>, platform-driver-x86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, John Linville <linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Peter HÃwe <PeterHuewe@xxxxxx> wrote: > Am Freitag 17 Dezember 2010, 12:30:15 schrieb Sedat Dilek: >> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Peter HÃwe <PeterHuewe@xxxxxx> wrote: >> > Am Mittwoch 15 Dezember 2010, 21:51:04 schrieb Randy Dunlap: >> >> > Hi, another patch was posted before: >> >> > >> >> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.platform.x86.devel/970/ma >> >> > tch =acpi_wmi >> >> >Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > Yeah, you're right - but as Sedat's patch is perfect (and fixes both) - >> > so for Sedats's patch: >> > Acked-by: Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@xxxxxx> >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Peter >> >> [ CC John Linville ] >> >> It's a bit disappointing to see my fix is still not in >> platform-drivers-x86/linux-next [1] (even it's only fixing "warnings", >> 9 days past). >> linux-next tree is for me a very high dynamic SCM tree, I am doing >> mostly daily builds, at weekend I am testing/pulling other trees >> before they go into Monday's linux-next. >> As far as I have fun with "my process"... I will continue. > > > > Added Stephen Rothwell on CC, maybe he can apply it directly to linux-next ;) > > Peter > I do not think this will happen for a "as-warning-classified" patch. As far as I understood from a previous asking to accept a patch through Stephen, he answered me that he is expecting that patches for sub-trees shall be pushed by the sub-maintainer(s). This is surely the optimal way. There is a nice, informative interview with Stephen on topic of linux-next [1] (working together with submaintainers etc.). Unfortunately, it will sometimes happen that more than one people will notice or send a patch to the same issue. So, yeah a bit waste of time someone could think. Thus, it is always good to check the MLs first :-). But which MLs? It's a pity people don't use linux-next ML for l-n releated stuff. As a consequence, I subscribed a few hours ago to linux-next ML [2] and will post primarily there (LKML should IMHO not be the 1st place for such issues, but a CC is OK). The subjects of Emails should be very clear on what type of issue. For example, breakage(s) shoul be clearly expressed. Also, I miss often against WTF version of linux-next ppl send patches. Hey, hello, each l-n version has a localversion-next file, didn't see :-)? A good subject: "Re: linux-next: Tree for December 20 (BROKEN iwlwifi)" or "linux-next: next-20101220 (BROKEN iwlwifi)" That a GIT tree is compile-able is a (maybe *the*) first step to QA, but QA is a big playground. Hmm, I have some ideas in my big suitcase... The wiki [1] needs partly a refresh... An IRC-channel #linux-next would be fine... Lemme re-think and write them down. - Sedat - P.S.: Personally, I have seen some patches from Randy and others which were still not applied. [1] http://video.linux.com/video/1048 [2] http://linux.f-seidel.de/linux-next/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Linux-next.ShortSummary -- 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
