From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 16:42:02 -0800 Subject: [GIT PULL] omap fixes for v3.2-rc2 In-Reply-To: <20111123231127.GJ31337@atomide.com> References: <20111119194408.GD31337@atomide.com> <201111232115.41035.arnd@arndb.de> <20111123220358.GI31337@atomide.com> <21329850.CZjvquqxJn@wuerfel> <20111123231127.GJ31337@atomide.com> Message-ID: <20111124004202.GM31337@atomide.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org * Tony Lindgren [111123 14:36]: > * Arnd Bergmann [111123 13:47]: > > On Wednesday 23 November 2011 14:03:58 Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > > > > The earlier patches are based on the earlier fixes (while waiting > > > for them to get merged). So that's certainly not a random commit. > > > Or at least was not at that time I can rebase those too anyways > > > now that the earlier fixes are merged. > > > > No need to do that unless you are rebasing them anyway. IMHO > > it's fine if you have all your bug fixes in one branch based > > on the previous bug fixes you sent, but it's of course also > > fine to start a fresh branch for each pull request. > > > > In general, I would recommend not rebasing when you have the > > choice, because that means your patches are not as well tested. > > Well I can keep only four of them because of the pull on a random > commit. Looks like four of them apply to v3.1, will send them > off to stable at vger.kernel.org and send you two new pull requests. FYI, forgot to mention that I verified that merging in the two pull requests produces the same end result as the original pull request. Tony