From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: ASoC updates for 2.6.32 Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 15:06:54 +0000 Message-ID: <20091106150654.GB27699@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> References: <20091106132654.GC10371@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> <20091106142330.GB4938@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from opensource2.wolfsonmicro.com (opensource.wolfsonmicro.com [80.75.67.52]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FC132474F for ; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:06:55 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: Takashi Iwai Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 03:37:14PM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote: > It's fine to keep the fix branch forwarding after the merge. Feel > free to do that in your side. OK, I'll do that. You're not concerned about this giving you the effect of back merging into your for-linus branches, or do you throw those away and regenerate them anyway? > My only point is that the backward merge from the upstream isn't > regarded as a good thing. ... > Well, I myself don't mind much, but Linus would do. > That's why I'm asking. I wasn't aware of this. I know he had issues with merging up of random not particularly tested commits (I don't like that either, especially in the merge window) but he had said he was OK with merging up tagged releases. Like I say, it's mostly just for my mental model of what's going on - the fact that there are these topic branches and they're kept around is what's telling me to do things this way.