From: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org,
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>,
ben-linux@fluff.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Samsung devel for v3.3
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 23:24:56 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120109232456.GI30766@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120109095839.GH21765@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 09:58:39AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 08:49:53PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > That'd be extremely disappointing, especially given that there's some
> > bug fixes in there for updates going in this merge window without which
> > mainline is going to have problems on s3c64xx (mostly the GPIO stuff).
> Here we go again with sucky work practices.
> This sucky behaviour has been around for a long time, I've long since
> given up complaining about it as it's exactly like talking to a bloody
> brick wall. People just continue mixing development and fixes together.
Actually in this case the issue is slightly different - the fixes are
mostly fixes for issues introduced by other development going in during
this merge window, what's gone wrong is that they've been applied to a
different branch to that which had the problem. Still an issue of
course, just a different one.
That said there's also an issue if pure development gets delayed - it
makes it harder to do further work based on top of the work that got
delayed, especially if any cross tree issues come into play.
> Note: Linus _has_ taken a copy of linux-next (read the 3.2 release email),
> and _is_ checking whether development stuff was in linux-next prior to
> the merge window opening. It would be very unwise to send new development
> which wasn't already there.
That's not an issue here, all the stuff that's being discussed is in
-next but not sent to the arm-soc tree.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [GIT PULL] Samsung devel for v3.3
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 23:24:56 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120109232456.GI30766@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120109095839.GH21765@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 09:58:39AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 08:49:53PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > That'd be extremely disappointing, especially given that there's some
> > bug fixes in there for updates going in this merge window without which
> > mainline is going to have problems on s3c64xx (mostly the GPIO stuff).
> Here we go again with sucky work practices.
> This sucky behaviour has been around for a long time, I've long since
> given up complaining about it as it's exactly like talking to a bloody
> brick wall. People just continue mixing development and fixes together.
Actually in this case the issue is slightly different - the fixes are
mostly fixes for issues introduced by other development going in during
this merge window, what's gone wrong is that they've been applied to a
different branch to that which had the problem. Still an issue of
course, just a different one.
That said there's also an issue if pure development gets delayed - it
makes it harder to do further work based on top of the work that got
delayed, especially if any cross tree issues come into play.
> Note: Linus _has_ taken a copy of linux-next (read the 3.2 release email),
> and _is_ checking whether development stuff was in linux-next prior to
> the merge window opening. It would be very unwise to send new development
> which wasn't already there.
That's not an issue here, all the stuff that's being discussed is in
-next but not sent to the arm-soc tree.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-09 23:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-01-03 23:33 [GIT PULL] Samsung devel for v3.3 Kukjin Kim
2012-01-03 23:33 ` Kukjin Kim
2012-01-06 21:58 ` Olof Johansson
2012-01-06 21:58 ` Olof Johansson
2012-01-07 10:09 ` Kukjin Kim
2012-01-07 10:09 ` Kukjin Kim
2012-01-08 20:49 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-08 20:49 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-09 1:21 ` Olof Johansson
2012-01-09 1:21 ` Olof Johansson
2012-01-09 1:40 ` Kukjin Kim
2012-01-09 1:40 ` Kukjin Kim
2012-01-09 2:03 ` Olof Johansson
2012-01-09 2:03 ` Olof Johansson
2012-01-09 15:56 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-01-09 15:56 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-01-09 16:11 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-09 16:11 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-10 9:06 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-01-10 9:06 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-01-10 18:31 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-10 18:31 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-10 18:44 ` Nicolas Pitre
2012-01-10 18:44 ` Nicolas Pitre
2012-01-10 18:46 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-10 18:46 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-10 19:00 ` Nicolas Pitre
2012-01-10 19:00 ` Nicolas Pitre
2012-01-10 20:13 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-01-10 20:13 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-01-10 22:37 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-10 22:37 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-11 0:11 ` Olof Johansson
2012-01-11 0:11 ` Olof Johansson
2012-01-11 6:39 ` Kukjin Kim
2012-01-11 6:39 ` Kukjin Kim
2012-01-11 16:19 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-01-11 16:19 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-01-11 16:50 ` Olof Johansson
2012-01-11 16:50 ` Olof Johansson
2012-01-11 17:29 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-11 17:29 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-11 6:20 ` Kukjin Kim
2012-01-11 6:20 ` Kukjin Kim
2012-01-09 8:26 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-09 8:26 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-17 6:40 ` Olof Johansson
2012-01-17 6:40 ` Olof Johansson
2012-01-17 7:23 ` Kukjin Kim
2012-01-17 7:23 ` Kukjin Kim
2012-01-17 7:24 ` Olof Johansson
2012-01-17 7:24 ` Olof Johansson
2012-01-17 10:53 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-17 10:53 ` Mark Brown
2012-01-09 9:58 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-01-09 9:58 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-01-09 23:24 ` Mark Brown [this message]
2012-01-09 23:24 ` Mark Brown
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120109232456.GI30766@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--to=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=ben-linux@fluff.org \
--cc=kgene.kim@samsung.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=olof@lixom.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.