From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Mundt Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] lib: Move find_last_bit.o to obj-y to enable use by modules. Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:29:30 +0900 Message-ID: <20090423102930.GA24434@linux-sh.org> References: <20090416030704.GH16961@linux-sh.org> <49E6E816.8010709@panasas.com> <20090423065006.GB21733@linux-sh.org> <49F03F26.4060103@panasas.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from 124x34x33x190.ap124.ftth.ucom.ne.jp ([124.34.33.190]:46252 "EHLO master.linux-sh.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757000AbZDWKel (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Apr 2009 06:34:41 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49F03F26.4060103@panasas.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Benny Halevy Cc: Rusty Russell , Ingo Molnar , Trond Myklebust , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Andy Adamson , Fredric Isaman , Stephen Rothwell , Alexander Beregalov , Subrata Modak , sachinp On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 01:12:54PM +0300, Benny Halevy wrote: > On Apr. 23, 2009, 9:50 +0300, Paul Mundt wrote: > > Ok, so we have two different trivial patches for fixing the same thing, > > and a week later it is still broken. > > > > I realize it is a trivial patch, but it does break builds. If folks > > aren't going to take these sorts of things more seriously, then their > > tree should be dropped after a grace period (say 2 days or so). > > > > Beyond that, it doesn't seem like -next has any sort of coherent policy > > for dealing with trivial patches. If the emphasis is on the tree that > > introduced the regression to deal with it, then trees need to be > > aggressively dropped when these things go unfixed. > > > > Having builds broken for a week for an issue that has been spotted and > > fixed by several people is simply unacceptable. > > Paul, that's a valid point but I don't set these polices. > Trond suggested to just commit this to 2.6.30 > and I asked Rusty's Ack here: > http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/4/21/489 > > Like I said there, I'm not sure who to send this patch to. > Ingo? > I was under the impression that a tree that caused a build regression would be dropped until it had it sorted out, but that seems to be more the exception than the rule. -next is good at finding bugs in build configurations folks haven't considered, which should serve as a pretty good platform for getting those types of fixes merged quickly, whether it be in to the tree that caused the regression or -next directly. Unfortunately it seems like build regressions are more of an afterthought than a show stopper. I count at least 3 on the sh builds in the last couple weeks that are all averaging a week or longer to unbreak, while patches have been available almost immediately.