On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Roland Dreier <rol...@kernel.org> wrote: > There's no obligation to merge something just because you posted it before > the merge window, and in fact Linus's complaint at the kernel summit is > always that sub-maintainers don't say no enough. > > And let's be honest in this specific case: the world is not going to end > without > a few performance counters in sysfs.
Agree on all, I just want to see progress here, its okay for this discussion and its such to miss this or that merge window, as long as at some point we get into a resolution which allows to fix a patch and queue it for the next merge window, e.g in this case, if we miss 3.2-rc1 and you don't feel the patches are appropriate for -rc2, they can be queued for 3.3 BTW - this brings something I wanted to raise long ago... I would be happy to see the for-next branch active at all times, e.g in the same manner net-next is, which means that patches aren't reviewed/accepted only/mostly in the weeks before the merge window opens but rather constantly over time. This shouldn't increase the amortized load on you and reduce the possible (maybe existing to some extent?) frustration by people who submit patches long before the next window opens and don't much feedback... (again, not relevant to this patch and the next) Or. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
