From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: swarren@wwwdotorg.org (Stephen Warren)
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 10:37:46 -0700
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the bcm2835 tree with the arm-soc tree
In-Reply-To: <20141208165127.GP3951@x1>
References: <20141208120619.68287b54@canb.auug.org.au>
 <2406890.FlzRjyvuXd@wuerfel> <20141208130009.GL3951@x1>
 <3348703.0b5FTH9Sa3@wuerfel> <20141208134903.GN3951@x1>
 <5485CD02.7010903@wwwdotorg.org> <20141208165127.GP3951@x1>
Message-ID: <5485E1EA.2070902@wwwdotorg.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 12/08/2014 09:51 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2014, Stephen Warren wrote:
...
>> The primary purpose of the kernel.org linux-rpi.git repo is for
>> staging patches into arm-soc/linux-next. As such, just like any
>> other similar repo, users should expect at least the for-xxx (e.g.
>> for-next) branches to get reset as kernel versions tick over, in
>> order to contain the content for the next kernel. Anyone using those
>> branches for anything else (e.g. local development) simply has to be
>> prepared to do a rebase themselves when that happens.
>
> I agree with this.
>
>> Equally, and patches that get sent to arm-soc should probably never
>> be applied to linux-rpi.git; anything that gets applied to
>> linux-rpi.git should get sent to arm-soc as a pull request. That
>> avoids duplicate commits.
>
> I'm okay to follow this rule if my perception of the tree is changed.
> The current view is that this repo can be used by engineers/hobbyists
> as a single resource to pick up RPi patches which are yet to complete
> their full transition into Mainline.
>
> Arnd and I had a discussion where I flagged my concerns about these
> kinds of conflicts.  The outcome was that as long as the patches were
> simple enough, then no conflict should arise.  Unfortunately this
> turned out not to be quite true.
>
> So I'm happy with whatever.  Stephen, the repo is your concept.  I'll
> play it however you want me to play it.  As the merge-window is now
> open I'm going to eradicate rpi/for-next in any case.

Eradicate or reset? If you delete it, Stephen Rothwell will have a 
problem fetching it when creating linux-next. Usually to empty out the 
for-next branch, you'd reset it to some recent Linus tag; 3.18 seems 
like a good one at present.