On Wed, 02 Mar 2022, Robert Marko wrote: > On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 11:54 AM Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 01 Mar 2022, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 09:37:41AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 12:46:44PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 09:01:49AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the char-misc tree got a conflict in: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did ask for this *not* to be merged when it was in -testing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I missed that, I saw your ack on the patch so that's why I took > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll follow-up with Greg. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should I revert this from my tree? > > > > > > > > > > > > I did try to catch it before a revert would have been required. > > > > > > > > > > My fault. > > > > > > > > > > > But yes, please revert it. > > > > > > > > > > Will go do so now. > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > > > > > The Ack is not standard and should not be merged. > > > > > > > > > > I do not understand this, what went wrong here? > > > > > > > > The "Ack" you saw was just a placeholder. > > > > > > > > When I provided it, I would have done so like this: > > > > > > > > "For my own reference (apply this as-is to your sign-off block): > > > > > > > > Acked-for-MFD-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx>" > > > > > > > > REF: https://lore.kernel.org/all/YQ0fYe531yCyP4pf@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > > > The majority of maintainers I regularly work with know this to mean > > > > that the set is due to be routed via MFD (with a subsequent > > > > pull-request to an immutable branch to follow), since MFD is often > > > > the centre piece (parent) of the patch-sets I deal with. > > > > > > > > I appreciate that this could cause confusion, but I'm not sure of a > > > > better way to convey this information such that it survives through > > > > various submission iterations. > > > > > > But what else is another maintainer supposed to think if they see that > > > ack on the patch? Ignore it? I took that to mean "this is good from a > > > mfd-point-of-view" which meant it can go through whatever tree it is > > > supposed to. > > > > > > Are you wanting this individual patch to go through your tree now only? > > > If so, you should say that by NOT acking it :) > > > > It's not quite as easy as that. > > > > It wouldn't be fair to the contributor to start reviews once all the > > other patches in the set are ready to be merged. So how would I > > indicate that the MFD part is ready, fully expecting some of the other > > patches in the set to be reworked and subsequent revisions are to be > > submitted? > > > > This method actually works really well the majority of the time, and > > has done for a number of years. However, I am always willing to > > improve on my processes given the opportunity. > > > > > How do you want to see this merged? > > > > The plan is for the whole set to be merged together via MFD. > > > > All of the other maintainers have now Acked, so it's ready to go: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220131133049.77780-1-robert.marko@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > Hi Lee, as far as I understand you will now take this series up via > your MFD tree? Yes, that's correct. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Principal Technical Lead - Developer Services Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
