From: Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>,
linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: merge of the arm tree into the at91 tree
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:23:04 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120126232304.GA10259@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120127093619.f2c90c6aa8b542134a157956@canb.auug.org.au>
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 09:36:19AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> I noticed that the for-next branch of the arm tree has been merged into
> the at91 tree. My understanding (and Russell, please correct me if I am
> wrong) is that the for-next branch is *not* stable and may be rebased.
> This will cause all sorts of problems in linux-next in the future (and
> also when Russell or the arm=soc guys merge the at91 tree into theirs).
And has already been rebuilt (I won't use 'rebased' because that's really
not what happens to it.) I've already re-explained this to Nicolas. It's
equivalent to someone basing their work off linux-next and expecting to
have that pulled into some other tree.
What's even worse is that Nicolas has published this as an official
branch for other people.
> In fact, I am going to have problems today as Russell has already rebase
> his for-next branch. :-(
I suggest that you drop the at91 tree this time around if you get
conflicts.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-26 23:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-01-26 22:36 linux-next: merge of the arm tree into the at91 tree Stephen Rothwell
2012-01-26 23:23 ` Russell King [this message]
2012-01-27 9:56 ` Nicolas Ferre
2012-01-29 21:06 ` Stephen Rothwell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120126232304.GA10259@flint.arm.linux.org.uk \
--to=rmk@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nicolas.ferre@atmel.com \
--cc=plagnioj@jcrosoft.com \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox