From: David Brown <davidb@codeaurora.org>
To: Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Bryan Huntsman <bryanh@codeaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [Git pull] MSM for v2.6.39
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:10:42 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8yapqphhfml.fsf@huya.qualcomm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1300890191.6117.43.camel@m0nster> (Daniel Walker's message of "Wed, 23 Mar 2011 07:23:11 -0700")
On Wed, Mar 23 2011, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 08:59 -0700, David Brown wrote:
>> David Brown (16):
>> msm: Add CPU queries
>> msm: Generalize timer register mappings
>> msm: Generalize QGIC registers
>> msm: Add MSM 8960 cpu_is check
>> Merge branch 'msm-uart' into for-next
>> Merge branch 'msm-8960' into for-next
>> Merge branch 'msm-sdcc' into for-next
>> Merge branch 'msm-fb' into for-next
>> Merge branch 'msm-8960' into msm-core
>> msm: Remove broken register definition from trout
>> msm: Warning fix in trout gpio board file
>> Merge branch 'msm-core' into for-next
>> Merge branch 'msm-core' into for-next
>> Merge branch 'msm-core' into for-next
>> msm: Use explicit GPLv2 licenses
>> Merge remote branch 'rmk/for-linus' into for-linus
>
> Could you change the "for-next" name to something more interesting like
> msm-for-linus .. I think it would be acceptable to just create
> msm-for-linus during the merge window and merge all the sub-tree's into
> that.
I think the problem was that these trees came in, intended for
linux-next, and were pulled into that branch. Then, I published that as
the tree for the pull-request 'for-linus', but nothing was actually
merged into that tree.
I can do a separate merge into the 'for-linus' tree before the merge
window, but then I won't be giving a pull request for the same commit as
what has been being tested in linux-next. I'm not sure what is
preferred here. Doing a separate merge at the end has the benefit of
reducing the number of intermediate merges. The tree sha will be the
same in either case, so it's really a matter what the history should
look like.
Thanks,
David
--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: davidb@codeaurora.org (David Brown)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [Git pull] MSM for v2.6.39
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:10:42 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8yapqphhfml.fsf@huya.qualcomm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1300890191.6117.43.camel@m0nster> (Daniel Walker's message of "Wed, 23 Mar 2011 07:23:11 -0700")
On Wed, Mar 23 2011, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 08:59 -0700, David Brown wrote:
>> David Brown (16):
>> msm: Add CPU queries
>> msm: Generalize timer register mappings
>> msm: Generalize QGIC registers
>> msm: Add MSM 8960 cpu_is check
>> Merge branch 'msm-uart' into for-next
>> Merge branch 'msm-8960' into for-next
>> Merge branch 'msm-sdcc' into for-next
>> Merge branch 'msm-fb' into for-next
>> Merge branch 'msm-8960' into msm-core
>> msm: Remove broken register definition from trout
>> msm: Warning fix in trout gpio board file
>> Merge branch 'msm-core' into for-next
>> Merge branch 'msm-core' into for-next
>> Merge branch 'msm-core' into for-next
>> msm: Use explicit GPLv2 licenses
>> Merge remote branch 'rmk/for-linus' into for-linus
>
> Could you change the "for-next" name to something more interesting like
> msm-for-linus .. I think it would be acceptable to just create
> msm-for-linus during the merge window and merge all the sub-tree's into
> that.
I think the problem was that these trees came in, intended for
linux-next, and were pulled into that branch. Then, I published that as
the tree for the pull-request 'for-linus', but nothing was actually
merged into that tree.
I can do a separate merge into the 'for-linus' tree before the merge
window, but then I won't be giving a pull request for the same commit as
what has been being tested in linux-next. I'm not sure what is
preferred here. Doing a separate merge at the end has the benefit of
reducing the number of intermediate merges. The tree sha will be the
same in either case, so it's really a matter what the history should
look like.
Thanks,
David
--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-03-23 18:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-03-17 15:59 [Git pull] MSM for v2.6.39 David Brown
2011-03-17 15:59 ` David Brown
2011-03-17 15:59 ` David Brown
2011-03-23 14:23 ` Daniel Walker
2011-03-23 14:23 ` Daniel Walker
2011-03-23 18:10 ` David Brown [this message]
2011-03-23 18:10 ` David 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=8yapqphhfml.fsf@huya.qualcomm.com \
--to=davidb@codeaurora.org \
--cc=bryanh@codeaurora.org \
--cc=dwalker@fifo99.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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.