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
next prev parent 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).