From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: Request for inclusion of ep93xx tree in linux-next Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 12:47:32 +0000 Message-ID: <201205021247.33220.arnd@arndb.de> References: <4F9F16A9.9090108@gmail.com> <201205010836.28365.arnd@arndb.de> <4FA0D48F.2090800@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.9]:49164 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753178Ab2EBMro (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 May 2012 08:47:44 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4FA0D48F.2090800@gmail.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: Ryan Mallon , Stephen Rothwell , Mika Westerberg , arm@kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, H Hartley Sweeten On Wednesday 02 May 2012, Ryan Mallon wrote: > Thanks for the tip. I leave the branches as is for the moment. If I end > up adding any additional branches to my tree, then I will look at > creating an ep93xx-for-next branch then. In this case, should the > for-next branch just be a regular merge of all the other branches I > have? Yes. In the arm-soc tree I usually just merge all changes on top of the for-next branch, and occasionally clean it up, starting over with a fresh -rc release and pulling the other branches in, then use git-diff to make sure the contents are identical to what they were before. > How do I make it verifiable that everything from the other > branches has been being tested in the for-next branch? I'm not sure I understand the question. Maybe you are looking for 'git branch --no-merged for-next' That command will show all local branches that are not merged into the for-next branch. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 12:47:32 +0000 Subject: Request for inclusion of ep93xx tree in linux-next In-Reply-To: <4FA0D48F.2090800@gmail.com> References: <4F9F16A9.9090108@gmail.com> <201205010836.28365.arnd@arndb.de> <4FA0D48F.2090800@gmail.com> Message-ID: <201205021247.33220.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wednesday 02 May 2012, Ryan Mallon wrote: > Thanks for the tip. I leave the branches as is for the moment. If I end > up adding any additional branches to my tree, then I will look at > creating an ep93xx-for-next branch then. In this case, should the > for-next branch just be a regular merge of all the other branches I > have? Yes. In the arm-soc tree I usually just merge all changes on top of the for-next branch, and occasionally clean it up, starting over with a fresh -rc release and pulling the other branches in, then use git-diff to make sure the contents are identical to what they were before. > How do I make it verifiable that everything from the other > branches has been being tested in the for-next branch? I'm not sure I understand the question. Maybe you are looking for 'git branch --no-merged for-next' That command will show all local branches that are not merged into the for-next branch. Arnd