On Thu, 2017-11-16 at 13:44 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 7f9c4f3fc9419d..d4e621e350f2cf 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -6827,6 +6827,7 @@ F: drivers/ipack/
>
> INFINIBAND SUBSYSTEM
> M: Doug Ledford <[email protected]>
> +M: Jason Gunthorpe <[email protected]>
> L: [email protected]
> W: http://www.openfabrics.org/
> Q: http://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-rdma/list/
Hello Doug and Jason,
Thanks Doug for having added a co-maintainer. Jason, thank you for willing
to be a co-maintainer.
Jason, if you are going to send pull requests to Linus you should be aware
of the following:
* Linus trusts pull requests from a kernel.org repository more than pull
requests from a repository outside kernel.org (e.g. github). Any requests
to pull from e.g. github must be PGP-signed.
* If you send an e-mail to Wu Fengguang then he will add a branch from your
repository to his zero-day testing. This is a great way to catch build
failures before linux-next catches these.
* Any patches that will be sent to Linus must have been in the for-next
repository for at least a few days. Requests to add a branch to linux-next
should be sent to Stephen Rothwell with linux-next in Cc.
* Maintainers are expected to keep an eye on merge conflicts and other reports
sent out to the linux-next mailing list
(http://vger.kernel.org/vger-lists.html#linux-next).
* Rebasing a tree that will be sent to Linus is completely inacceptable. A
quote from Linus: "And in general, you simply should never rebase commits
that have already been publicized." Source: Linus Torvalds, Re: linux-next:
Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree, linux-next mailing
list, 2 August 2017 (https://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg2571584.html).
* Backmerging (merging a later rc into a maintainer tree) to pull in rc fixes
from other maintainers is considered inacceptable too. If patches from other
maintainers are really needed I think it is acceptable to merge a maintainer
tree into Linus' tree and to apply late rc patches on top of that merged
tree.
See also https://lwn.net/Articles/328436/.
Best regards,
Bart.?&ן8ߏ8??5?~?ۍ?? E?#h?^???4??~?M4?M{_???1? ????6?]6?ݹ뾹Ӆ?f????m?l??ۣ ?jנ???????????+?ƥRz
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 05:54:34PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Thanks Doug for having added a co-maintainer. Jason, thank you for willing
> to be a co-maintainer.
Thank you Bart!
> Jason, if you are going to send pull requests to Linus you should be aware
> of the following:
I think we will work up to that, obviously I will be working with Doug
and his expertise and experience will guide what happens.
A new git tree has been setup for RDMA:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rdma/rdma.git/
This will replace Doug's personal k.o tree effective immediately as
the cannonical source for the RDMA work in progress.
Both Doug and I have write privileges to this tree.
> * Linus trusts pull requests from a kernel.org repository more than pull
> requests from a repository outside kernel.org (e.g. github). Any requests
> to pull from e.g. github must be PGP-signed.
Done
> * If you send an e-mail to Wu Fengguang then he will add a branch from your
> repository to his zero-day testing. This is a great way to catch build
> failures before linux-next catches these.
Thanks
> * Any patches that will be sent to Linus must have been in the for-next
> repository for at least a few days. Requests to add a branch to linux-next
> should be sent to Stephen Rothwell with linux-next in Cc.
Doug will send Stephen Rothwell a note to move his for-next pull for
RDMA from Doug's personal directory to:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rdma/rdma.git
Branch k.o/for-next
> * Maintainers are expected to keep an eye on merge conflicts and other reports
> sent out to the linux-next mailing list
> (http://vger.kernel.org/vger-lists.html#linux-next).
Good advice..
> * Rebasing a tree that will be sent to Linus is completely inacceptable. A
> quote from Linus: "And in general, you simply should never rebase commits
> that have already been publicized." Source: Linus Torvalds, Re: linux-next:
> Signed-off-by missing for commit in the drivers-x86 tree, linux-next mailing
> list, 2 August 2017 (https://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg2571584.html).
Yes, of course
> * Backmerging (merging a later rc into a maintainer tree) to pull in rc fixes
> from other maintainers is considered inacceptable too. If patches from other
> maintainers are really needed I think it is acceptable to merge a maintainer
> tree into Linus' tree and to apply late rc patches on top of that merged
> tree.
Yes, this gets tricky if two trees have to coordinate..
Jason
From 1584308515565833724@xxx Fri Nov 17 10:25:40 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1584291020925676504
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread