On Thu, 2017-06-01 at 14:14 -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 05/31/17 22:04, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > Go ahead and get list review on drivers/target/ changes before pushing > > them into linux-next, please. > > > > Btw, I don't care if you queue up one's that do have at least two > > Reviewed-bys into your tree, but everything that doesn't have > > Reviewed-bys or Acked-by should not be going into linux-next. > > It is not your job to rewrite the rules for linux-next. I'm following > the guidelines I received from Stephen in December 2016. You were copied > on the e-mail with guidelines Stephen sent to me. See also > https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-next/msg38488.html. > > Stephen, if anything would have changed in the meantime that I'm not > aware of please let me know. > The point is you're not sending PULL requests. But like I said earlier, I really don't care if you put patches that have been reviewed into your tree for linux-next before I get a chance to review and pick them up for target-pending. However, you putting random un-reviewed changes is where I have to draw the line, especially considering what happened earlier in year where what you had in linux-next close to the merge window was completely and utterly broken. Would you put un-reviewed block and scsi changes into linux-next..? What would those subsystem maintainers say about that..? Why is drivers/target any different..? -- 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
