On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 08:13:54PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Tuesday 10 January 2012, Mark Brown wrote: > >> > That sounds like it'd be helpful overall but it's something that has to >> > be sorted out at the maintainer level. I'm guessing there's not really >> > much that contributors can do here? > >> I think you did everything as good as you could, we just need to routinely >> call for everyone to submit stuff in time. A number of maintainers sent stuff >> after Christmas (which I expected to start the merge window) and were mostly >> lucky because Linus gave us an extra 10 days to sort things out. > > I guess it would also be useful to have some way to compare what's in > -next with what's in the arm-soc tree and chase people if that diff gets > big. I do also wonder if it's worth letting people push stuff to you > more aggressively - right now you seem to be asking people to batch > things up and I wonder if that's making it a it easier for things to end > up dropping on the floor if a time based routine isn't working well for > people. I actually did just this today based on this discussion, and I'll do it through the next staging cycle to keep a track of the "arm backlog" of how much is sitting in maintainer trees vs what has already been merged into Russell's tree or arm-soc. We can include these stats in next rounds "last call for patches" email to help catch forgotten branches. I merged rmk's for-next branch with the arm-soc one, merged that on top of mainline and diffed arch/arm with what is in linux-next. Right now, plus or minus some sloppy merge conflict resolutions on my part, the statistics are: git diff --stat next/master -- arch/arm [..] 113 files changed, 670 insertions(+), 810 deletions(-) (this diffstat does not include late/* branches since they got included in the arm-soc side of the diff) Most of these are rightfully still there; some changes are going through other trees such as some PCI changes, ASoC, PM, a few fixes that haven't been sent up to arm-soc yet, etc. A couple of patches seem to have been queued in for-3.4 branches a bit early (Stephen doesn't generally want people to start queueing new stuff until the merge window is over), but that's just a couple of them. So, it looks like there's no major backlog left for any specific vendor subtree. >> end, samsung also did for the most part but not entirely and you were >> unfortunate to be the contributor of the patches that missed out. > > It's not just me, I'm just vocal and perhaps more to the point spend a > reasonable amount of time chasing stuff into various trees so want to > figure out if I need to change what I'm doing with that. What I would do myself is that if I hadn't seen the patches land in the topmost staging tree by -rc6 or -rc7, I would ping the owner of the tree that the patches are sitting in to make sure they go up. Hopefully this kind of thing will be a rare scenario. -Olof -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |