[openib-general] few notes about last night (and elsewhere) IB upstream traffic

[Or Gerlitz]

Hey Michael,

The way IB patches are pushed upstream along the last (first to IB...) 
kernel cycles is that patches are gathered in a branch at Roland's GIT 
tree @kernel.org and then once or twice along the lifetime of feature or 
bug fixes merge window, Roland sends an email to Linus with CC to lkml 
and openib asking him to pull a patch set.

I strongly prefer this work mode among other things as of the following 
reasons:

- it allows developers to easily keep track on what's went upstream and 
when by just saving this 1 or 2 emails per window

- Roland tree under kernel.org is accessed via http and supports fancy 
and very helpful browsing

- it creates much less traffic which is practically noise at lkml (why 
are you sending each patch to netdev as well??? other than making these 
patches confuse my mailer rules i don't see any reason for that)

- it confines to the linux hierarchic maintaining model, Roland is the 
IB maintainer and he sends Linus ***bunch*** of patches, ***once in a 
while***

Also if not urgent (eg the bug is killer and the kernel is about to be 
out in few hours) i think its wrong to send fixes directly from the oven 
to Linus; patches should reside in the IB git tree for a while, were 
they can be pulled/compiled and tested by IB developers.

To summarize, i suggest to revert to the work mode that has been set by 
Roland so far, and have it done by Roland. I did not see any note from 
him that he will not keep on doing the excellent job he did so far, only 
mentioned that he would be somehow slow for some time as of good and 
happy reasons.

Also, and sorry to do that in public, please slow down.

Or.

Andrew Morton wrote:
 > On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 01:19:02 +0300
 > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at mellanox.co.il> wrote:
 >
 >> Quoting r. Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at mellanox.co.il>:
 >>> Yes, -mm seems like a good way to get more review.
 >> Andrew, am I using the right format to send things upstream to you?
 >> There's really a set of independent patches, so it didn't make sense
 >> to me to batch them up in a series. OK?
 >
 > Sure.  Although I am a little surprised to be be receiving them while
 > Roland is in taking-time-off-but-not-really-doing-so mode.
 >
 > But whatever - I'll put them in the for-2.6.18 queue, thanks.