On Thu, 26 May 2016, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Linus Torvalds > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Pulled and then immediately unpulled again. > > .. and having thought it over, I ended up re-pulling again, so now > it's going through my build test. > > Consider this discussion a strong encouragement to *not* do this in > the future - sending me pull requests at the end of the merge window > without them having been in linux-next is a no-no, unless those pull > requests are small and trivial (or have fixes that I'd pull even > outside the merge window, of course).
Thank you! We'll be sure we include things in -next well beforehand next time around, especially if it's a big diff like this one. One point of clarification, though: in the past I've squashed down fixes discovered during testing if the branch hasn't hit a stable tree yet (e.g., your tree). AIUI this is(was?) standard procedure for things in -next. Do you want us to avoid squashing if we are creeping up on pull request time, or are you primarily interested in, say, seeing that what has been in -next for a while is substantially the same as what you pull, and has perhaps been there unmodified for at least a few days? Or would you rather see fixup patches if we identify issues in the last few days of testing? Thanks- sage
