From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: khilman@linaro.org (Kevin Hilman) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:20:17 -0700 Subject: arm-soc: Xilinx Zynq DT changes for v3.12 In-Reply-To: (Olof Johansson's message of "Tue, 13 Aug 2013 23:17:34 -0700") References: <520A47C3.5000106@monstr.eu> <87r4dxfbuk.fsf@kernel.org> <87ioz9dt1c.fsf@kernel.org> <520B1A89.8080704@monstr.eu> Message-ID: <871u5w5mfi.fsf@kernel.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Olof Johansson writes: > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:50 PM, Michal Simek wrote: > >> I wasn't aware about using earlier -rc. The last information I got >> is that these trees should be based on Linux -rc (or tagged if you like) version. >> I will keep this in my mind and will use earlier versions in the next pull requests. > > Yes, the request to not always go with the latest -rc is new for this > release cycle, so we're generally not pushing back and enforcing it, > just asking nicely :) > > However, since Kevin just got up to speed at the same time, he might > have been of the impression that it's something we've been asking for > in the past. :) > > The reason for asking is that if we keep getting new and different > -rcs as bases for merge requests, the history starts to look like a > lot of merge-backs from upstream, when there's rarely a real need for > being based on such a new -rc. Still, it's not a big deal, and we've > been doing it that way now for a couple of years, but I think we could > avoid some of it without causing anyone more work (once they're used > to it :). > >> It is just one single patch and I believe you have to use rc5 >> and resolve that all conflicts anyway that's why it is just question >> of time when you have to deal with it. > > Ah, I saw that there was a branch included from the zynq tree and > figured this was in it. I'll let Kevin handle the merge so it's up to > him if he prefers to rebase back or just merge it in with -rc5. I'll take care of the merge with -rc5 this time. Kevin