[Ksummit-2012-discuss] [ATTEND] linux-next and process
sfr at canb.auug.org.au
Tue Jun 19 10:55:24 UTC 2012
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:59:19 +0100 James Bottomley <James.Bottomley at HansenPartnership.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 10:25 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > There's a fair chunk of -next commits that don't get merged from the KVM
> > userspace tools which don't seem to be going towards mainline at any
> > great rate (there is some debate about putting them in the kernel tree
> > at all) but on the other hand aren't really impacting anything else
> > either.
> There surely aren't 1643, are there? But if they're not on upstream
I am glad that you pointed this out, as, at the time of v3.5-rc1, there
were 1149 non-merge commits in the kvmtool tree in linux-next (some more
have been added since then).
> track, they shouldn't be in linux-next (especially if there's debate
> about whether they will go upstream). If they have no impact (as in
> they're sitting in a defined subdirectory and are never built by a
> standard kernel build and don't get looked at by any of the kernel tests
> run on next) was there actually any point in putting them in next in the
> first place?
At the time it was added, it was suggested that Linus would be sent a
pull request for v3.2.
The kvmtool tree has now been completely merged into the tip tree's
auto-latest branch (which is also included in linux-next).
Stephen Rothwell sfr at canb.auug.org.au
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Ksummit-2012-discuss