From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 14:55:53 +0200 Subject: Please submit platform trees for inclusion in arm-soc.git v3.1 In-Reply-To: References: <201107012018.14619.arnd@arndb.de> <201107112337.08892.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: <201107121455.53717.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tuesday 12 July 2011, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Friday 08 July 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote: > > > > Time is running out for the current cycle, so any changes that you > > > > want to see merged in linux-3.1 through the arm-soc tree should be > > > > submitted in form of pull-requests very soon. > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > It looks like your "remove rmk/for-next" commit may not have been > > > totally complete. > > > > > > Trying to merge your master branch and Russell's current for-next branch > > > still results in conflicts in files that should only be touched in > > > Russell's branch (specifically, these seem related to changes in > > > Russell's 'suspend' branch that is included in his 'for-next' branch.) > > > > Yes, that's my fault for not fixing this up correctly after initially > > doing the incorrect pull. > > > > I guess I'll throw away the current master branch and generate a new > > one. After discussing this with Russell, I think it's best to treat > > the master branch as temporary anyway unless Nicolas or Thomas come up > > with a good reason against doing this. > > No objections. However, to avoid confusion, I'd suggest getting rid of > the branch called "master" entirely and call it something else. Yes, makes sense. I'll call it 'for-next' then, following the same scheme that Russell uses. Hopefully people will take it as a hint that it's getting rebased. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753488Ab1GLM4F (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jul 2011 08:56:05 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:52238 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753394Ab1GLM4C (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jul 2011 08:56:02 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Nicolas Pitre Subject: Re: Please submit platform trees for inclusion in arm-soc.git v3.1 Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 14:55:53 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.31-22-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Kevin Hilman , Russell King , Thomas Gleixner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org References: <201107012018.14619.arnd@arndb.de> <201107112337.08892.arnd@arndb.de> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201107121455.53717.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:aOJd7wOXbMQGECqwxrKTqL26obXPj31Bd29f2vJNO4m e4zoz/PM26jSqdhEq8OA9eQ6uXVMXFkpqiPUiuKfQ2vw8UWQht ew3Z1Cx/wPunTdPtref3sBA/FJ5zLT/lnjLEoaZa4iAMB0f2bn FBvpEpAYdWJRyDP8AOhcEanZiXh/q1pCLaLVONSYAQ8L6ZzTIQ X6PyF3Kr0mhv2S7uDac/w== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 12 July 2011, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Friday 08 July 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote: > > > > Time is running out for the current cycle, so any changes that you > > > > want to see merged in linux-3.1 through the arm-soc tree should be > > > > submitted in form of pull-requests very soon. > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > It looks like your "remove rmk/for-next" commit may not have been > > > totally complete. > > > > > > Trying to merge your master branch and Russell's current for-next branch > > > still results in conflicts in files that should only be touched in > > > Russell's branch (specifically, these seem related to changes in > > > Russell's 'suspend' branch that is included in his 'for-next' branch.) > > > > Yes, that's my fault for not fixing this up correctly after initially > > doing the incorrect pull. > > > > I guess I'll throw away the current master branch and generate a new > > one. After discussing this with Russell, I think it's best to treat > > the master branch as temporary anyway unless Nicolas or Thomas come up > > with a good reason against doing this. > > No objections. However, to avoid confusion, I'd suggest getting rid of > the branch called "master" entirely and call it something else. Yes, makes sense. I'll call it 'for-next' then, following the same scheme that Russell uses. Hopefully people will take it as a hint that it's getting rebased. Arnd