On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 08:20:09AM -0500, Dennis Dalessandro wrote: > > > >If you treat all unmarked patches (without mentioning in cover letter or > >subject title) as targeted to for-next, it will make your life much more > >easier than trying to pick each patch alone. As an outcome, it will make > >the patch flow more predictable for us. > > Agree with Leon here. Unless otherwise stated, I would think for-next should > always be the default target. I try to tag my subject with for-next or > for-rc to make it clear. For Leon and Dennis I know they mark things, but other people seem to be sending bug fixes that are rc material without any firm indication one way or the other. I read the patches and that is my main question. Of course if they do not come in RC acceptable format then they wait in patchworks until -next is opened. > Now of course that being said here is an exception. I sent a series 2 weeks > ago that didn't make Doug's pull request for 4.15. I'd like to see some of > that stuff land in the rc if there are no objections. The driver changes at > least, the CM/SA can probably push off to for-next. > I could resubmit just the series, or you could just pick the 4 driver > patches from patchworks whatever is easiest. I marked them in patchworks, but can you review the commit messages and make sure you think Linus will see them as rc material too? Thanks, Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
