On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Or Gerlitz <[email protected]> wrote: > I noted that you typically use the for-next branch of the infiniband > tree for fixes during > the 1 < kernN-rc < (say) 6 time and for features during (kernN-rc > 6) > till kern(N+1)-rc1 > > This means that the window of time when features are actually accepted > into your tree is kind of very limited. Would it be possible to > maintain two branches: for-next and (say) rc-fixes, such that > practically patches are reviewed/accepted to for-next at almost all > times? > > BTW I see that networking and scsi maintainers use two trees > (net/net-next) and (scsi-misc/scsi-rc-fixes), maybe it would be eaiser > for you go this way?
It's not really an issue of not having a tree to put things into. It's more that the window when I actually review major things is not as big as perhaps it should be. So I generally try to get fixes in expeditiously because they're easy to deal with, whereas I only dedicate time to merging bigger things when I feel the pressure of the impending merge window. I do usually have some small patches that are fine for the next window but which I have only marked "to apply" in my mailbox, which it might be a good idea to apply sooner so they get more -next tree coverage. - R. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
