Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761801AbZFLJ6S (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jun 2009 05:58:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933553AbZFLJ6F (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jun 2009 05:58:05 -0400 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:55686 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761718AbZFLJ6E (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jun 2009 05:58:04 -0400 Subject: Re: linux-next: origin tree build failure From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Ingo Molnar , Stephen Rothwell , Linus , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, paulus@samba.org, ppc-dev In-Reply-To: <1244799786.6691.1133.camel@laptop> References: <20090612102427.32582baa.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <1244768406.7172.1.camel@pasglop> <20090612092054.GB32052@elte.hu> <1244799197.7172.106.camel@pasglop> <1244799786.6691.1133.camel@laptop> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:57:15 +1000 Message-Id: <1244800635.7172.114.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1456 Lines: 37 On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 11:43 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 19:33 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > We should at least -try- to follow the > > process we've defined, don't you think ? > > So you're saying -next should include whole new subsystems even though > its not clear they will be merged? Maybe yes. And if there's some debate as to whether it should be merged or not, maybe Linus should make the decision, let -next carry it for a few days to iron out those problems, and -then- merge it. > That'll invariably create the opposite case where a tree doesn't get > pulled and breaks bits due to its absence. > > -next does a great job of sorting the existing subsystem trees, but I > don't think its Stephens job to decide if things will get merged. No, it's not, but then, maybe Linus could play the game and -tell- us whether he intend to merge or not at least a few days in advance :-) > Therefore when things are in limbo (there was no definite ACK from Linus > on perf counters) both inclusion and exclusion from -next can lead to > trouble. Well, Linus did ACK by merging :-) So he should have been able to give that ack a few days in advance too.. Cheers, Ben. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/