From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wolfram Sang Subject: Re: Stable I2C branch needed as a dependency for Tegra change Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 20:45:15 +0200 Message-ID: <20120512184515.GC28973@pengutronix.de> References: <4FA31297.8000904@wwwdotorg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tqI+Z3u+9OQ7kwn0" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FA31297.8000904-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Stephen Warren Cc: "linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , ARM kernel mailing list List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org --tqI+Z3u+9OQ7kwn0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, > Is your i2c-embedded/for-next branch stable (i.e. that commit will not > be rebased between now and when you send a pull request for 3.5), so I > can use it as a baseline for a Tegra branch? If not, could you let me > know when it is stable, so I can create the Tegra branch as that time. Because of my holidays coming along, I'd think my for-next branch is done now (except for additions maybe). Yet, when and how to rewind the branch and/or offering a stable base in general is another thing I need to scratch my head about afterwards. Regards, Wolfram --=20 Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | --tqI+Z3u+9OQ7kwn0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk+ur7sACgkQD27XaX1/VRuigACfTctrHS4cRqCVp88ADEBeXXvs ekQAnROrqVFS2+nDQfJGHyrxQdXVUWjS =zimu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --tqI+Z3u+9OQ7kwn0--