On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Alan, > > On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:18:47 +0000 Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > > Well its very hard to sort stuff out when you are juggling a cross tree >> > > set of dependancies and someone pointlessly stops one of them being >> > > visible in next for ten days. >> > >> > The mess in the drm tree has nothing to do with the staging tree. >> >> I would suggest you re-read the paragraph above, and the mails I sent you >> about marking the staging gma500 tree broken (which given nothing >> happened in response to any of them I imagine you didn't). > > When I originally reported this problem, you responded: > >> gma500 is frozen pending Dave Airlie's applying the patches moving it out >> of staging. >> >> <Prod, prod> > > Which I assumed was aimed at Dave. Then Jesse (whose changes broke the > code in staging) responded with a patch which I assumed that Dave would > do something with. Then the next day you responded with: > >> If the staging gma500 is causing this still please resolve it by marking >> the GMA500 in staging "&& BROKEN" for the moment. > > And maybe I should have done something then. I fall back on the excuse > that I have about 200 trees to merge every day and when I use to fix > things for people I used to have lots of 12-16 hour days ... > >> And if you still think that blocking the DRM tree from -next for ten days >> thus stopping all sorts of other integration work and forcing people's >> hands on moving from staging and the like didn't cause the problems and >> is the right policy then we'll just have to agree to differ. > > If you are trying to get something merged into the drm tree, you should > be working with the drm tree and with the drm maintainer, not > linux-next. Linux-next is here to find integration problems between > trees and across architectures not to find problems with changes within > one tree. > > And I repeat, the breakage today is nothing to do with the staging tree, > it is in the drm tree and how your gma500 changes were merged there (and > to be clear, there is nothing wrong with the gma500 changes per se). > > In the future, I will try to remember to "kill staging first", but this > is the first time it has come up since staging started being built by an > allmodconfig build (which it used not to be - and that change was not my > choice). Yeah I've tracked it down here, I had messed up the configs locally so Alan's code wasn't built, I'll pile some fixes on top of it today. Dave. -- 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