From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757950Ab1GKVhZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:37:25 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.186]:57661 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751489Ab1GKVhY (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:37:24 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Kevin Hilman Subject: Re: Please submit platform trees for inclusion in arm-soc.git v3.1 Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 23:37:08 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.31-22-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Thomas Gleixner , Nicolas Pitre , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Russell King References: <201107012018.14619.arnd@arndb.de> <87wrfsahez.fsf@ti.com> In-Reply-To: <87wrfsahez.fsf@ti.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201107112337.08892.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:Cc2OoOyaToOlh9Rn6kyNgCQsAvksQ74OWcwuaf3Ip66 4kbgDrJqA0RiSZbjJnGtj4wU04Zy8MXBeEoa8biECNDnQ/WOgU xAEVCkj8qsL8xeS7r4dV6B80dGeG12WAv0YUEG12HV8ZC6jdto Yeo7seFC52lh/8znwHKAQ1+XD0s8XhuO9qME6rGMJ9UqYDB/RA Qb9QTafZlba1FQtxJKQ/A== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday 08 July 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote: > > Time is running out for the current cycle, so any changes that you > > want to see merged in linux-3.1 through the arm-soc tree should be > > submitted in form of pull-requests very soon. > > [...] > > It looks like your "remove rmk/for-next" commit may not have been > totally complete. > > Trying to merge your master branch and Russell's current for-next branch > still results in conflicts in files that should only be touched in > Russell's branch (specifically, these seem related to changes in > Russell's 'suspend' branch that is included in his 'for-next' branch.) Yes, that's my fault for not fixing this up correctly after initially doing the incorrect pull. I guess I'll throw away the current master branch and generate a new one. After discussing this with Russell, I think it's best to treat the master branch as temporary anyway unless Nicolas or Thomas come up with a good reason against doing this. Arnd