Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the drm tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Alan,

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:18:47 +0000 Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > Well its very hard to sort stuff out when you are juggling a cross tree
> > > set of dependancies and someone pointlessly stops one of them being
> > > visible in next for ten days.
> > 
> > The mess in the drm tree has nothing to do with the staging tree. 
> 
> I would suggest you re-read the paragraph above, and the mails I sent you
> about marking the staging gma500 tree broken (which given nothing
> happened in response to any of them I imagine you didn't).

When I originally reported this problem, you responded:

> gma500 is frozen pending Dave Airlie's applying the patches moving it out
> of staging.
>
> <Prod, prod>

Which I assumed was aimed at Dave.  Then Jesse (whose changes broke the
code in staging) responded with a patch which I assumed that Dave would
do something with.  Then the next day you responded with:

> If the staging gma500 is causing this still please resolve it by marking
> the GMA500 in staging "&& BROKEN" for the moment.

And maybe I should have done something then.  I fall back on the excuse
that I have about 200 trees to merge every day and when I use to fix
things for people I used to have lots of 12-16 hour days ...

> And if you still think that blocking the DRM tree from -next for ten days
> thus stopping all sorts of other integration work and forcing people's
> hands on moving from staging and the like didn't cause the problems and
> is the right policy then we'll just have to agree to differ.

If you are trying to get something merged into the drm tree, you should
be working with the drm tree and with the drm maintainer, not
linux-next.  Linux-next is here to find integration problems between
trees and across architectures not to find problems with changes within
one tree.

And I repeat, the breakage today is nothing to do with the staging tree,
it is in the drm tree and how your gma500 changes were merged there (and
to be clear, there is nothing wrong with the gma500 changes per se).

In the future, I will try to remember to "kill staging first", but this
is the first time it has come up since staging started being built by an
allmodconfig build (which it used not to be - and that change was not my
choice).

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature