On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 11:11 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > James Bottomley wrote: > > The initial bsg submit went via the block git tree ... which I believe > > you have in -mm. We only started taking the updates via the scsi tree > > Seven hours before you posted this, in > <20070807001429.f8cb3b22.akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew already > noted it was not in -mm. > > A trivial examination of the broken-out mm patches backs up the absence > of Jens' block tree, too. > > So let's put this myth / bad assumption to rest, shall we? Sorry ... I just assumed from the fact that it had been in the block git tree for six months that it was also in -mm. > > Yes ... particularly in large trees like SCSI, there's the maintainer > > "bugger if I don't mail it out now I don't get it in for another three > > months" factor. > > That factor always exists. It's not confined to SCSI or large trees. > It's basic the nature of the merge window. Nothing new or shocking here. > > > > bsg had actually been sitting in the block tree since 2.6.21, so it had > > followed the delayed merge rule ... it just seems that it didn't get > > enough integration testing in that six months. This is what I consider > > It didn't get integration testing, at least in part, because it did not > hit our official pre-release tree. Quoth Andrew: > > I pulled git-scsi-misc on July 19 and there was no bsg code in there at > > all. I pulled again on July 20 and all the bsg code was in mainline. > > > > > I don't disagree; my point is that bsg did follow this rule (in fact it > > Evidence says otherwise. It followed the rule of trying to stabilise outside mainline ... it just didn't get sufficient integration testing. > > I wouldn't call bsg half baked ... it was very carefully matured. There > > were just a few integration issues. > > I wouldn't call bsg carefully matured, if in addition to not really > gracing -mm with its presence, the userland API structure is still > getting changes on July 29, 2007 (0c6a89ba640d28e1dcd7fd1a217d2cfb92ae4953). This would be the ABI change I talked about in the previous emails. So would this problem have been fixed simply by adding the missing block tree to -mm? James - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
