Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751163AbdFBD6K (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:58:10 -0400 Received: from mail.linux-iscsi.org ([67.23.28.174]:60049 "EHLO linux-iscsi.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751122AbdFBD6J (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:58:09 -0400 Message-ID: <1496375887.27407.223.camel@haakon3.risingtidesystems.com> Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the target-bva tree with the target-updates tree From: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" To: Bart Van Assche Cc: "sfr@canb.auug.org.au" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 20:58:07 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <20170601141055.3b64fefc@canb.auug.org.au> <1496293179.16453.1.camel@sandisk.com> <1496293444.27407.184.camel@haakon3.risingtidesystems.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1434 Lines: 34 On Thu, 2017-06-01 at 14:14 -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 05/31/17 22:04, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > Go ahead and get list review on drivers/target/ changes before pushing > > them into linux-next, please. > > > > Btw, I don't care if you queue up one's that do have at least two > > Reviewed-bys into your tree, but everything that doesn't have > > Reviewed-bys or Acked-by should not be going into linux-next. > > It is not your job to rewrite the rules for linux-next. I'm following > the guidelines I received from Stephen in December 2016. You were copied > on the e-mail with guidelines Stephen sent to me. See also > https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-next/msg38488.html. > > Stephen, if anything would have changed in the meantime that I'm not > aware of please let me know. > The point is you're not sending PULL requests. But like I said earlier, I really don't care if you put patches that have been reviewed into your tree for linux-next before I get a chance to review and pick them up for target-pending. However, you putting random un-reviewed changes is where I have to draw the line, especially considering what happened earlier in year where what you had in linux-next close to the merge window was completely and utterly broken. Would you put un-reviewed block and scsi changes into linux-next..? What would those subsystem maintainers say about that..? Why is drivers/target any different..?