From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: plagnioj@jcrosoft.com (Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2012 17:41:15 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: sort select statements alphanumerically In-Reply-To: <20121007133048.GE28061@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20121007131440.GC12801@game.jcrosoft.org> <20121007133048.GE28061@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20121007154115.GD12801@game.jcrosoft.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 14:30 Sun 07 Oct , Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Sun, Oct 07, 2012 at 03:14:40PM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > On 17:22 Sat 06 Oct , Russell King wrote: > > > This commit is likely to change as we get closer to the end of the merge > > > window, as other changes get merged into Linus' tree. I will be refreshing > > > this from time to time, and keeping it out of linux-next, as it will cause > > > more pain than its worth to put it into linux-next. > > > > > > Anyone who wants to give this a review to check that it's correct are welcome, > > > but I don't think it would be appropriate to collect attributation tags for > > > it, as this won't be the final patch. > > > > > > This patch is intentionally broken to prevent Linus from applying it - this > > > is information only! > > > > > > Anyone who wants to apply it can do so by first running this patch through: > > > > > > sed 's/^-- /@@ /' > > > > > > arch/arm/Kconfig | 399 ++++++++++++++++++------------------- > > > arch/arm/common/Kconfig | 4 +- > > > arch/arm/mach-at91/Kconfig | 26 ++-- > > this maybe conflict with pinctrl support > > Of course it will - and this tells me that you did not read the comments > I left before the diffstat. It's almost guaranteed to conflict with > virtually all the changes going into this merge window. > > > Acked-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD > > And this also confirms that too; I said I didn't want to add attributations > to it because you aren't going to be acking the patch which will eventually > be committed. > > In sort, this patch _will_ be recreated by the script at the end of the > merge window, and whatever that patch ends up being is what will get > merged. It's very likely (because of the inherent conflicts in doing > this) that it _will_ be different from this one. > > What that means is if I add (your) acked-by to it, I will be adding it > to a different patch to the one you've sent this to. > > What I want people to do with this is review it and make sure that the > script hasn't created any obvious mistakes; I've already done that but > the more eyes we get on it the better. I did read it I just point it out so if people try to apply over it then known and just point out that I see no issue on at91 Best Regards, J.