All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	ceph-devel <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Ceph updates for 4.7-rc1
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 17:46:49 -0400 (EDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1605261718560.6221@cpach.fuggernut.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFx=v0SYBURwJbFNdPW0nGpzJrVO2b0BcqJEonZedizm2A@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, 26 May 2016, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > Pulled and then immediately unpulled again.
> 
> .. and having thought it over, I ended up re-pulling again, so now
> it's going through my build test.
> 
> Consider this discussion a strong encouragement to *not* do this in
> the future - sending me pull requests at the end of the merge window
> without them having been in linux-next is a no-no, unless those pull
> requests are small and trivial (or have fixes that I'd pull even
> outside the merge window, of course).

Thank you!  We'll be sure we include things in -next well beforehand next 
time around, especially if it's a big diff like this one.

One point of clarification, though: in the past I've squashed down fixes 
discovered during testing if the branch hasn't hit a stable tree yet 
(e.g., your tree).  AIUI this is(was?) standard procedure for things in 
-next.  Do you want us to avoid squashing if we are creeping up on pull 
request time, or are you primarily interested in, say, seeing that what 
has been in -next for a while is substantially the same as what you pull, 
and has perhaps been there unmodified for at least a few days?  Or would 
you rather see fixup patches if we identify issues in the last few days of 
testing?

Thanks-
sage

  reply	other threads:[~2016-05-26 21:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-05-26 18:18 [GIT PULL] Ceph updates for 4.7-rc1 Sage Weil
2016-05-26 18:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-05-26 19:02   ` Sage Weil
2016-05-26 19:54     ` Linus Torvalds
2016-05-26 20:10       ` Al Viro
2016-05-26 21:18         ` Linus Torvalds
2016-05-26 21:13   ` Linus Torvalds
2016-05-26 21:46     ` Sage Weil [this message]
2016-05-27  2:16       ` Linus Torvalds
2016-06-10 20:42 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-06-10 21:32   ` Linus Torvalds
2016-06-10 23:04     ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-06-11 22:50     ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-06-13 13:06     ` Arnd Bergmann

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=alpine.DEB.2.11.1605261718560.6221@cpach.fuggernut.com \
    --to=sweil@redhat.com \
    --cc=ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.