On Thu, 2015-03-05 at 06:48 -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > On Thu, 2015-03-05 at 14:31 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > For about 8 month I've merged almost every scsi commit through the > > scsi-queue staging tree, and it seems to have worked out well enough. > > > > I've been too busy for the next cycle, so 4.1 will probably have to live > > without it. I'd like to get feedback on how the tree worked for > > contributors > > and driver maintainers, and brainstorm how to move forward with it, > > preferably > > some form of real team maintainance that avoids single points of failure. > > I'd like to thank Christoph for doing this, it's been an enormous help. > > Here's what we'll do for 4.1: I need all the current Maintainers to > collect the patches and reviews in their area and send them to the list > as a series. We'll be adhering to the guidelines Christoph laid down > for inclusion: > > - the patch needs at least two positive reviews (non-author signoff, > reviewed-by or acked-by tags). In practice this means it had at > least one and I added another one. > As an exception I also take trivial and important fixes if they > only have a Tested-by: instead of a second review. > - the patch has no negative review on the mailing list > - the patch applies cleanly > - the patch compiles (drivers for architectures I can't test excluded) > - for core the core branch: the patch survives a full xfstests run
This should be pretty standard in all subsystems, no? And I know this has been discussed many times, but I see no reason not to also consider trinity -- which has a tendency of kicking you in the nuts when you least expect it to. At least in MM we are trying to be a bit more proactive about this, perhaps Sasha or Dave would disagree with me ;) But in general it would also help other subsystems. Thanks, Davidlohr -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
