On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:25:04AM +0530, Vineet Gupta wrote: > > I've taken this now, it will be sent to Linus for 3.9-rc1. > > Thanks greg. I understand the tree closing rules' purpose, to let things stabilize > ahead of merge window - both from mechanical conflicts perspective as well as > runtime conflicts. However I'm slightly confused here about the process, specially > as a n00b maintainer and was hoping you could clarify it. > > Your announcement of Feb 9th said > > >With the release of the 3.8-rc7 kernel, I think it's time to close the > >TTY/serial tree for new features / cleanups for 3.9. So I'm closing my > >tree, and will only be applying obvious bugfixes or regressions to it > >until 3.9-rc1 comes out. > > So a bug fix sent on say Feb 11th would have been be applied to your tree to end > up in 3.9 merge-window pull to Linus- correct or no ? Yes. > So in that sense, since Arnd/Grant are deeming this patch as bug fix, > shouldn't it make into 3.9 merge-window merge. Yes, and that is where it will be, as I said so above. > So maybe, it's the criticality of the bug which warrants that. Please > note that I'm just trying to understand the process here and not > arguing about patch itself. > > >You can keep sending me patches for the tree that don't fit the "bugfix" > >category, but note that I'll be storing them away to wait for 3.9-rc1 > >comes out, which might be a few weeks, so please be patient. > > And once 3.9-rc1 hits, everything becomes 3.10 merge material anyways > except for bug fixes. Yes. Hope this helps, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
