Hi Mark, I have no intend to break the rules. I am just trying to communicate with UFS maintainers that so far gave me no response. Merging in v4.7 is fine, but I would like that UFS maintainers give me some feedback about the next steps, but so far didn't have luck.
Thanks, Joao On 3/22/2016 10:58 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:31:28AM +0000, Joao Pinto wrote: > >> The following patch-set was approved by Arnd Bergmann and Rob Herring and I >> would appreciate that someone from SCSI / UFS gave a final checkout in order >> to >> evaluate the possibility of still merging it to v4.6 or putting it in a >> branch >> in SCSI to be merged to v4.7. > > I've no idea why you're sending me this stuff but please stop - you sent > a similar mail yesterday and I see there were a bunch of similar mails > before you started CCing me into the thread - but sending daily top > posted content free pings is just going to annoy people (or at least > it's annoying me) and sending them to random other maintainers isn't > likely to improve things. This is especially the case when we're more > than half way through the merge window and the code apparently isn't > even in -next yet. > > Please stop this and follow Arnd's advice (which you quoted from the > message you're replying to): > >>>> On 3/18/2016 2:49 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >>>>> I think the code is ok now, but the timing apparently didn't work for 4.6. >>>>> I'd suggest you resend as soon as 4.6-rc1 is out so it can get merged >>>>> into 4.7. > > If there's some reason to break the process you need to articulate what > it is and give people a chance to respond but that's *very* rare, unless > there is an unusually strong reason people are going to use the normal > development workflow. >
