Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755363Ab1BBW7T (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Feb 2011 17:59:19 -0500 Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.251]:33260 "EHLO wolverine02.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755268Ab1BBW7R (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Feb 2011 17:59:17 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6245"; a="72763473" 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:nico@fluxnic.net::cuSh9abwiIy867yn:00x+I X-Hashcash: 1:20:110202:rmk@arm.linux.org.uk::Tvdh5hPSnZBurL9/:000000000000000000000000000000000000000000YzL X-Hashcash: 1:20:110202:linux-next@vger.kernel.org::RIWWnJPV4ZH6zIE7:000000000000000000000000000000000000fox X-Hashcash: 1:20:110202:greg@kroah.com::tYpvX8AUOXXWgEGC:00020zx X-Hashcash: 1:20:110202:sfr@canb.auug.org.au::fNnijIUYb3IYk8ud:000000000000000000000000000000000000000003PoX X-Hashcash: 1:20:110202:stepanm@codeaurora.org::nz8g6dDbTjoFmYUz:0000000000000000000000000000000000000004L/z X-Hashcash: 1:20:110202:linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org::4HTix8fYVrQPVNKF:000000000000000000000000000000000CB4y Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 14:59:16 -0800 Message-ID: <8yaipx259h7.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: 1421 Lines: 31 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. I also have no real problem sending pull requests to RMK instead of Linus, as long as it isn't a pain. Linus gives clear directions as to how his tree works, and when he expects what kinds of pull requests. Weird web-based patch tracking systems are a pain. Pull requests from git with a fairly easy way to know when they've been pulled are not. I also find that http://ftp.arm.linux.org.uk/ is frequently inaccessable, and usually slow. As it stands, so far, it's been a lot less work for me to send directly to Linus, and resolve the issues that come up when they do. 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/