Re: [GIT PULL] perf fix

[Ingo Molnar]

* Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > This pull request you replied to is the v3.4 era fixes tree, 
> > with one remaining fix in it.
> 
> I see.  The forest of tip trees apparently confuses me still.  
> I'll figure it out eventually.

The topic tree layout for single-topic trees is pretty simple 
and straightforward - but the situation you met here was 
arguably a weird corner case:

 X/urgent are the fixes that go to Linus
 X/core   are the development patches for the next merge window

Where 'X' can be one of: perf, sched, timer, irq - the main 
subsystem trees we maintain. (x86 is a multi-topic tree, with 
intuitively named topic trees, such as x86/reboot, x86/asm or 
x86/mm.)

All of them are test-merged into tip:master - this is the one 
that you will typically use, the topic layout is for maintainers 
and for power-contributors/submaintaners who are sending Git 
pull requests to us.

at the beginning of a merge window (i.e. right now) there might 
be fixes pending in perf/urgent that did not make it to v3.4. 
Instead of merging them into perf/core I tend to send them to 
Linus as a standalone tree.

The rest of perf/core, once the initial one or two sets of 
commits get pulled by Linus, morphs into perf/urgent, fairly 
early in the merge window.

Thus there's a new perf/urgent and an empty perf/core, and the 
cycle starts again.

You met this cycle switch period to the day (the chance is only 
1:90 for that, consider yourself lucky ;-), which created the 
impression of a confusing fixes workflow.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/