On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 09:18:05AM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2025-09-11 at 14:06 +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Sep 2025, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

> > > There are two cases here for patches committed by sub-maintainers,
> > > but never fed to next:
> > > 1. The upstream maintainer took them via pull request.

> > Hm, why would that imply that they never make to linux-next though?

...

> > I don't see how the fact that (part of) topic branch came in via pull
> > request would make any difference ... ?

> Yes, this is what I see too ...

> 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.