Re: [PATCH 0/1] About MIPS/Loongson maintainance

[Huacai Chen]

Hi, James,

Of course we don't want to send PR directly, if there is a better way.
So, I hope you can officially be a co-maintainer of linux-mips, and as
a result, our community will become more active. I think most of MIPS
developers have the same will as me.

Huacai

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 3:51 PM, James Hogan <james.hogan@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 12:01:46PM +0800, Jiaxun Yang wrote:
>> Also we're going to separate code between
>> Loongson2 and Loongson3 since they are becoming more and more
>> identical.
>
> Do you mean you want to combine them?
>
>> But It will cause a lot of changes under march of loongson64
>>  that currently maintaining by linux-mips community. Send plenty of
>> patches to mailing list would not be a wise way to do that. So we can
>> PR these changes to linux-next directly and PR to linux-mips before
>> merge window.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, a pull request would not excempt you from
> needing your patches properly reviewed on the mailing lists first.
>
> And quoting Stephen's boilerplate response to linux-next additions:
>> Thanks for adding your subsystem tree as a participant of linux-next.  As
>> you may know, this is not a judgement of your code.  The purpose of
>> linux-next is for integration testing and to lower the impact of
>> conflicts between subsystems in the next merge window.
>>
>> You will need to ensure that the patches/commits in your tree/series have
>> been:
>>      * submitted under GPL v2 (or later) and include the Contributor's
>>         Signed-off-by,
>>      * posted to the relevant mailing list,
>>      * reviewed by you (or another maintainer of your subsystem tree),
>>      * successfully unit tested, and
>>      * destined for the current or next Linux merge window.
>>
>> Basically, this should be just what you would send to Linus (or ask him
>> to fetch).  It is allowed to be rebased if you deem it necessary.
>
> Cheers
> James