From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: jrnieder@gmail.com (Jonathan Nieder)
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 09:32:35 -0700
Subject: [PATCH v2] ARM: Build dtb files in all target
In-Reply-To: <20120901152544.GB24085@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
References: <1346303687-7795-1-git-send-email-andrew@lunn.ch>
 <20120830165224.GR19437@titan.lakedaemon.net>
 <20120830172304.GA18957@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
 <20120830183711.GY19437@titan.lakedaemon.net>
 <20120830191412.GC18957@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
 <1346447515.13980.19.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk>
 <20120831223219.GA6906@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
 <1346509216.13980.23.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk>
 <20120901152544.GB24085@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Message-ID: <20120901163235.GB748@mannheim-rule.local>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hi Russell,

Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 03:20:16PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 23:32 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

>>> No it is not.  It seems you also need to read
>>> Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt
>> [...]
>>
>> None of which contradicts what I said above.  There is no need for
>
> I really can't believe you just said that.  You have not read the document.

Ben makes use of that document on a daily basis to maintain the 3.2.y
tree, so I suspect he has read it.  More importantly, as maintainer of
a stable branch, I suspect he is familiar with the de facto rules.

Is there some specific misleading wording in the document?  Pointing
it out, perhaps with a suggested replacement, could lead to the text
being fixed, which would be a nice outcome that could make up for the
pointlessly inflammatory discussion.

Hoping that clarifies,
Jonathan