Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755270Ab1BBWqn (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Feb 2011 17:46:43 -0500 Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.251]:41281 "EHLO wolverine02.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753312Ab1BBWql (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Feb 2011 17:46:41 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6245"; a="72762260" From: David Brown To: Nicolas Pitre Cc: Greg KH , Russell King , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, lkml , Stepan Moskovchenko Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the msm tree with the arm tree In-Reply-To: (Nicolas Pitre's message of "Wed, 02 Feb 2011 16:47:12 -0500 (EST)") References: <20110131131401.5d6c7646.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <8ya4o8m70jp.fsf@huya.qualcomm.com> <20110202194359.GC27065@kroah.com> <20110202200030.GA26104@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110202203252.GD28479@kroah.com> <20110202204453.GB26104@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Hashcash: 1:20:110202:stepanm@codeaurora.org::ii9v4A/sN2LKomMb:0000000000000000000000000000000000000000G+I X-Hashcash: 1:20:110202:linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org::Juc5IP4G/U2wPNO7:0000000000000000000000000000000000R09 X-Hashcash: 1:20:110202:rmk@arm.linux.org.uk::5fzLrc1Wm4i+MYB7:000000000000000000000000000000000000000001cMa X-Hashcash: 1:20:110202:greg@kroah.com::q0DFkY1zeJRpRui3:00021SC X-Hashcash: 1:20:110202:nico@fluxnic.net::oHN41XGhUKl+4fEJ:03MXv X-Hashcash: 1:20:110202:sfr@canb.auug.org.au::YvXDr3pdbiChoNEL:0000000000000000000000000000000000000000044nv X-Hashcash: 1:20:110202:linux-next@vger.kernel.org::JukE9eMEOvTiVkQh:00000000000000000000000000000000000Q5pt Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 14:46:40 -0800 Message-ID: <8yar5bq5a27.fsf@huya.qualcomm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1350 Lines: 32 On Wed, Feb 02 2011, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > The actual problem here is that some people, notably the msm folks, are > bypassing the maintainer hierarchy and going straight to Linus for their > pull requests instead of asking RMK to pull. We once debated this at > some point and it was agreed that completely independent SOC specific > code with no dependencies on the common ARM code _could_ go straight to > Linus directly if they crave for it. But in this case: > > 1) the conflict is obviously simple > > 2) the conflict resolution is just as obvious > > 3) and Stephen is able and willing to carry this conflict resolution for > the foreseeable future until this all gets merged in mainline. > > So... WTF is the actual problem here? I hadn't really brought this up as a problem, but was mostly wondering if it was ok to just have Stephen carry the conflict resolution until the next merge window. The rest of the comments came from Greg. David -- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum. -- 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/