On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 06:11:22PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > On 11/19/2016 2:46 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 4:01 AM, Doug Ledford wrote: > >> On 11/17/2016 5:24 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote: > > > > [...] > > Are you going to comment on that to the submitter? if not, they are > > going to continue with this practice. > > Comment on what to the submitter? That the patch might not have been > -rc material? I would have been OK with it around rc1 or rc2, just not > this late in the rc cycle. In the end, I don't, nor can I, rely on > submitters to determine what's RC material and what isn't, that's what > I'm supposed to be doing. I will always apply my own judgment on that > issue and submitters will learn over time when their patches get skipped > on any sort of a regular basis. And I'm pretty fine with Doug's judgement regarding -rc vs. -next. Our submission flow meets the expected by RDMA maintainer and we will continue to work in the same mode as long it suits Doug's expectations for acceptable/unacceptable submission. > > > How are we supposed to realize from patchworks + your github branches > > that patches that were submitted for 4.9-rc are picked for 4.10? this > > is very confusing and error prone too. > > I emailed the submitters off list about it and provided them a list of > what patches went where and why. Thank you, I compared the submitted list with found in your trees and everything looks in place.