From: Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>,
linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: merge of the arm tree into the at91 tree
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:23:04 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120126232304.GA10259@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120127093619.f2c90c6aa8b542134a157956@canb.auug.org.au>
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 09:36:19AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> I noticed that the for-next branch of the arm tree has been merged into
> the at91 tree. My understanding (and Russell, please correct me if I am
> wrong) is that the for-next branch is *not* stable and may be rebased.
> This will cause all sorts of problems in linux-next in the future (and
> also when Russell or the arm=soc guys merge the at91 tree into theirs).
And has already been rebuilt (I won't use 'rebased' because that's really
not what happens to it.) I've already re-explained this to Nicolas. It's
equivalent to someone basing their work off linux-next and expecting to
have that pulled into some other tree.
What's even worse is that Nicolas has published this as an official
branch for other people.
> In fact, I am going to have problems today as Russell has already rebase
> his for-next branch. :-(
I suggest that you drop the at91 tree this time around if you get
conflicts.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-26 23:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-01-26 22:36 linux-next: merge of the arm tree into the at91 tree Stephen Rothwell
2012-01-26 23:23 ` Russell King [this message]
2012-01-27 9:56 ` Nicolas Ferre
2012-01-29 21:06 ` Stephen Rothwell
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=20120126232304.GA10259@flint.arm.linux.org.uk \
--to=rmk@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nicolas.ferre@atmel.com \
--cc=plagnioj@jcrosoft.com \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
/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.