Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933017AbcK1OGV (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Nov 2016 09:06:21 -0500 Received: from mail-lf0-f49.google.com ([209.85.215.49]:36816 "EHLO mail-lf0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932701AbcK1OGP (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Nov 2016 09:06:15 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20161128110713.GE28558@mwanda> References: <20161121221702.6438-1-christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> <20161125215139.GM6266@mwanda> <20161126100229.GO6266@mwanda> <20161128110713.GE28558@mwanda> From: Mike Marshall Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 09:06:12 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] orangefs: Axe some dead code To: Dan Carpenter Cc: Martin Brandenburg , Christophe JAILLET , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2128 Lines: 53 Perhaps we should modify Greg KH's "be-all, end-all document" on "HOWTO do Linux kernel development" then... you've contributed a boatload of work to the kernel since as far back as 2006, but I'm a newbie who just works in an isolated subsystem... people like me need a reliable and authoritative cheat-sheet to go by... I think you believe I should ask for this to be pulled only during a merge window. Since this patch doesn't involve new functionality, or even any functionality, it seems like pull-fodder anytime after it is vetted, based on Greg's HOWTO... My original intent on posting to this thread was to let christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr know that I saw and appreciate his review and the good patch he supplied. -Mike On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 08:51:57AM -0500, Mike Marshall wrote: >> I think I understand what you're saying, except for this part: >> >> > would have been secretly disapointed at your lack of >> > courage in my heart but it would have been normal and fine. >> > What I'm saying is that for some people the cut off for 4.10 happens > the week or two before 4.9 is released. I'm sending bugfixes and they > still push them out to 4.11. It annoys me, secretly. > > >> I'm pretty sure that Linus won't accept a pull request from me >> at the wrong time and that I won't send one at the wrong time >> on purpose. > > Linus pulls lots of things that make him unhappy. If he didn't > compromise he would go mad. > >> >> I've been laboring under the belief that the rc period is when >> we "push only patches that do not include new functionalities", >> and I would have thought that stripping out a few lines of dead >> code would be appropriate then. >> > > No. -rc is for fixing regressions only. If it's a fix for a bug that > has *always* been there, then think carefully about how important it is > because that's not a regression fix. If it's a bug fix, but it's not a > regression fix and it's not critical then wait. Non-bugfixes should > only go in during the merge window. > > regards, > dan carpenter >