On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Greg KH [off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 02:47:49AM +0530, Srivatsa Bhat wrote:

quoted

Hi,

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:51 AM, amit mehta [off-list ref]

wrote:

quoted

    > Also the kernel tree you are using seems to be Linus's mainline, is
    > that what you wanted or did you want to be making the patch

against a

quoted

    > linux-next kernel?

    My current goal is to send some patches to kernel janitor group

though I'm

quoted

    not
    sure if this group is still active or not.
    you mean to say that this is not the tree which i should be synced

to? If

quoted

    not
    then can you please send me the link to the relevant git repository ?



Please note that linux-next is just a tree used for integration-testing.

I

quoted

strongly suggest
that you don't base your patches on linux-next. Basing it on current

mainline

quoted

is generally a good idea. But if you are doing some significant

development,

quoted

you should target the individual trees that the subsystem maintainers

maintain.

quoted

To put it in simple terms, base your patch on current mainline and send

it to

quoted

the appropriate people (use get_maintainer.pl in the scripts directory

to find

quoted

whom to send it to). Then if the maintainer specifically asks you to

rebase

quoted

your
patch on some particular tree that he maintains, then do it. Then you

know what

quoted

to do with patches related to that subsystem from next time onwards :-)

As a subsystem maintainer, I strongly disagree with this.

Do your work against linux-next, as that contains the different
subsystems already.  You don't want to do something only to find out you
need to totally redo it, or just throw it away as someone else has
already done it (which is quite common for janitorial and other "simple"
tasks).

Ok, that makes sense.

So please, either work against linux-next, or the subsystem-specific
tree, linux-next is usually easier, the odds of cross-subsystem merges
causing problems with your change, for the subsystem maintainer, are
very low, much lower than the fact that major changes might have already
happened.

I see your point, and I agree with you now.
Thanks a lot Greg, for showing the right path!

Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20120202/8b986e61/attachment.html