Subject: Re: linux-next: origin tree build failure

From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:57:15 +1000

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.