On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 22:12:26 +0100 (CET) Jiri Kosina <jkosina@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > [ added Stephen to CC ] > > On Mon, 4 Jan 2010, James Bottomley wrote: > > > Well, the fact that the compile failure wasn't detected before it went > > upstream should answer that ... > > > > But to be more specific: linux-next is our integration tree (and also > > the obscure architecture compile tree). To ensure the best possible > > integration, every tree should be built and tested in linux-next at > > least once before it goes to Linus. There were originally technical > > reasons why -mm wasn't in ... I just thought they'd been fixed by now. > > /me checks ... > > Yes, it indeed is that way -- Andew pulls whole linux-next as one of the > patches into -mm series. > > To make linux-next really working the way it is intended to work we need > to have -mm part of it, as it is used as a last point for a non-trivial > amount of patches before they enter Linus' tree. > > Andrew, why do we have the current setup, and not the other way around? > Because I suck. I haven't yet got around to feeding -mm into linux-next. It's a bit tricky, because -mm is based on linux-next. Probably we'll address this by adding a "linux-next before the mm bits" marker to linux-next. -- 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
