Hi, James, Of course we don't want to send PR directly, if there is a better way. So, I hope you can officially be a co-maintainer of linux-mips, and as a result, our community will become more active. I think most of MIPS developers have the same will as me. Huacai On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 3:51 PM, James Hogan <james.hogan@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 12:01:46PM +0800, Jiaxun Yang wrote: >> Also we're going to separate code between >> Loongson2 and Loongson3 since they are becoming more and more >> identical. > > Do you mean you want to combine them? > >> But It will cause a lot of changes under march of loongson64 >> that currently maintaining by linux-mips community. Send plenty of >> patches to mailing list would not be a wise way to do that. So we can >> PR these changes to linux-next directly and PR to linux-mips before >> merge window. > > For the avoidance of doubt, a pull request would not excempt you from > needing your patches properly reviewed on the mailing lists first. > > And quoting Stephen's boilerplate response to linux-next additions: >> Thanks for adding your subsystem tree as a participant of linux-next. As >> you may know, this is not a judgement of your code. The purpose of >> linux-next is for integration testing and to lower the impact of >> conflicts between subsystems in the next merge window. >> >> You will need to ensure that the patches/commits in your tree/series have >> been: >> * submitted under GPL v2 (or later) and include the Contributor's >> Signed-off-by, >> * posted to the relevant mailing list, >> * reviewed by you (or another maintainer of your subsystem tree), >> * successfully unit tested, and >> * destined for the current or next Linux merge window. >> >> Basically, this should be just what you would send to Linus (or ask him >> to fetch). It is allowed to be rebased if you deem it necessary. > > Cheers > James
