On Thu, 2025-09-11 at 14:49 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 09:18:05AM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
[...]
> > The requirement from Linus for merge is usually incubation in -
> > next, so there are very few pull requests that haven't been at
> > least a few days in -next.  So what is your complaint?  That the
> > incubation period is too short or that every patch should be in -
> > next as soon as it hits any maintainer tree rather that
> > submaintainers relying on the overall maintainer to do the
> > incubation for them?
> 
> One pattern you see with trees that do this is that some bug is found
> in -next, the bug is fixed and the patch applied but if the patch is
> applied to a tree that isn't in -next you still see the bug in -next
> until the pull request to the upstream tree goes through.  Any
> incubation that the subtree does before sending their pull request,
> or delay in taking the pull request from the subtree, shows up in
> additional time that the bug is visible in -next.

In theory a fix to a pulled commit, whether separate or rebased, should
be treated like a bug fix and go up with speed, so is this simply a
missing rule (or encouragement) for a tree not in -next?

Regards,

James