Re: linux-next: manual merge of the target-bva tree with the target-updates tree

[Nicholas A. Bellinger]

On Thu, 2017-06-01 at 14:14 -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 05/31/17 22:04, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > Go ahead and get list review on drivers/target/ changes before pushing
> > them into linux-next, please.
> > 
> > Btw, I don't care if you queue up one's that do have at least two
> > Reviewed-bys into your tree, but everything that doesn't have
> > Reviewed-bys or Acked-by should not be going into linux-next.
> 
> It is not your job to rewrite the rules for linux-next. I'm following
> the guidelines I received from Stephen in December 2016. You were copied
> on the e-mail with guidelines Stephen sent to me. See also
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-next/msg38488.html.
> 
> Stephen, if anything would have changed in the meantime that I'm not
> aware of please let me know.
> 

The point is you're not sending PULL requests.

But like I said earlier, I really don't care if you put patches that
have been reviewed into your tree for linux-next before I get a chance
to review and pick them up for target-pending.

However, you putting random un-reviewed changes is where I have to draw
the line, especially considering what happened earlier in year where
what you had in linux-next close to the merge window was completely and
utterly broken.

Would you put un-reviewed block and scsi changes into linux-next..?

What would those subsystem maintainers say about that..?

Why is drivers/target any different..?