From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: ASoC updates Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 21:09:18 +0000 Message-ID: <20090105210918.GA21839@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <20090105175633.GA24696@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from opensource2.wolfsonmicro.com (opensource.wolfsonmicro.com [80.75.67.52]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6C02103835 for ; Mon, 5 Jan 2009 22:09:18 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: Takashi Iwai Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 09:53:21PM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote: > Are all these 2.6.30 material or for 2.6.29? They're a bit on the edge, I'd expect them to be safe for 2.6.29 but the conservative thing would be to punt to 2.6.30. None of them are critical. > For 2.6.30, I'll create another branch. It won't be included in > linux-next, too, until rc1 is reached (Stephen requested so), but we > can keep it in our main branch, of course. How about branching off a fixes branch for 2.6.29 rather than a -next branch? That way we can keep using the same branch for further fixes through the -rc series. Doesn't make much difference either way, though.