[Ksummit-2012-discuss] [ATTEND] Process issues, device model, stable

[Olof Johansson]

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt at goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 15:37 -0500, linux at roeck-us.net wrote:
>
>> That would effectively delay new development by a full release cycle.
>> I don't think that would be a good idea.
>
> OK not a full release cycle, but perhaps a couple of weeks. Like Tony
> suggested, you need to have your stuff in linux-next by -rc5 if you want
> it in the next merge window.

Isn't the informal rule today (that no one follows, obviously) that
things should be in by -rc6 or so?

We're definitely sinners on arm-soc, since we tend to get hammered by
pull request usually between -rc6 and -rc7 or so.

Pushing back can be a bit awkward too, since you essentially make
third parties pay the price of the submaintainer not getting the pull
request done early enough: i.e. some of what Mark was commenting on
earlier -- he might have posted his patches in time but we didn't see
them come in through the submaintainer until riiiight before the merge
window opens.

We normally eventually get tired of receiving late merge requests and
start adding them to our tree explicitly as "these came in late and if
the merge window is painless and we have time, we will send them up
but no promises". Maybe we should just start cutting over to that mode
sooner, but so far things haven't been _too_ bad.


-Olof