Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the lost-spurious-irq tree with the tip tree

From: Ingo Molnar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 11:12:23 +0200

* Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Ingo,
> 
> On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 09:01:23 +0200 Ingo Molnar <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> > Fortunately there's a really simple solution: wait for an explicit 
> > reply from a maintainer before adding a new-feature tree. (Solicite 
> > again via a To: email if the Cc: went unanswered by the 
> > maintainers.)
> 
> Sure we can try that.

Thanks.

> > Could you please start using that method for all subsystems i 
> > co-maintain?
> 
> So, to be clear, from the MAINTAINERS file that would be LOCKDEP AND 
> LOCKSTAT, PERFORMANCE EVENTS SUBSYSTEM, SCHEDULER, TRACING, and X86 
> ARCHITECTURE. [...]

Yep - those are the main ones.

( You might want to apply the process generally as well - it's rather 
  rare that trees parallel to maintainer trees get added to linux-next 
  and IMO it pays to make sure the maintainers are actively fine with 
  such additions.

  A Cc: to a mail with no patch content is easy to miss and it's useful
  to solicit a 'yeah, sure it's fine' mail from a maintainer - just like 
  we solicit Acked-by's from maintainers for much smaller matters than 
  full trees (individual patches).

  This would further ensure that linux-next is indeed a stable
  approximation of the 'next Linux' as intended by maintainers.
  To me this looks like a pretty obvious and useful thing to do. )

Thanks,

	Ingo