Request to include Mailbox tree in linux-next

[Jassi Brar]

On 8 August 2014 20:11, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux at arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 07:55:52PM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote:
>> On 8 August 2014 09:59, Stephen Rothwell <sfr at canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>> > Hi Jassi,
>> >
>> > On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 12:25:49 +0530 Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh at linaro.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>  The framework for Mailbox has undergone 10 revisions over the last
>> >> one year, which has garnered support in the form of 'Reviewed-by' and
>> >> 'looks good enough to be merged in this window' from people in the CC
>> >> list.
>> >>
>> >>   Could you please add it to linux-next?
>> >> Tree:       git://git.linaro.org/landing-teams/working/fujitsu/integration.git
>> >> Branch:   mailbox-for-3.17
>> >> Contact:  Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh at linaro.org>
>> >
>> > This is really late for v3.17.  The purpose of linux-next is to
>> > discover interactions between trees before they are pulled into Linus'
>> > tree and to do some cross architecture build checking.  Adding a tree
>> > during the merge window is not very helpful to that.
>> >
>> > However if this is really going to be merged by Linus before v3.17-rc1,
>> > I will add it on Monday, OK?
>> >
>> The patchset was deemed ready enough for this merge window. However
>> some late nitpicks and bikeshedding discussions ate time and my
>> confidence to send a pull request to Linus.
>
> If it wasn't in linux-next before the merge window, you shouldn't be
> thinking about sending it to Linus.  Your changes may cause conflicts
> with other trees, which would be unknown - and to push it in during
> a merge window without it having been visible to others is quite
> unacceptable.
>
> As Stephen says, linux-next is there to find interactions between
> trees before the code hits during the merge window - so that people
> know what conflicts are likely, and what the resolutions to the
> conflicts should be.  If your tree is not part of linux-next, then
> it's an unknown as far as everyone else is concerned.
>
>> Upon Mark's suggestion (and the right thing to do) I wanted the patchset
>> to live the cycle in linux-next.
>
> Yes, that's the right thing to do, but you sent the request at an
> inappropriate time.  The correct time to send your request would be
> after 3.17-rc1 has been released, IOW after the current merge window
> is over.
>
> In general, kernel developers don't "remember" requests from one week
> to the next; instead, we much prefer people send their requests at the
> appropriate times in the development cycle.
>
OK, thanks for explaining.
-jassi