From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
Roland Stigge <stigge@antcom.de>,
devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, srinivas.bakki@nxp.com,
linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
thierry.reding@avionic-design.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kevin.wells@nxp.com, marek.vasut@gmail.com, arm@kernel.org,
linux-input@vger.kernel.org, axel.lin@gmail.com,
dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] Second patchset for LPC32xx device tree conversion
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:21:29 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201204191421.29558.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120418165650.GD3099@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
On Wednesday 18 April 2012, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:00:39AM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> > 1. develop on -rc
> > 2. merge with latest -next, test and make sure it works there
> > 3. submit for review against -rc
> > 4. have patches included in -next once reviewed, but based on -rc
> > 5. when merge window opens, have patches sent for upstream inclusion
>
> Steps 3 and 4 should be to submit against whatever branch is appropriate
> for the subsystem and driver - if people follow this process they're
> going to get bounced back by a fair proportion of maintainers, -rc isn't
> universally what people are looking for so people should be aware that
> they need to pay attention here.
>
> Generally I'd say the development version is a safer bet than -rc for
> most subsystems.
Right. The description above was mostly done for the lpc32xx case,
which is going to get merged through the arm-soc tree and that doesn't
have a single development branch but instead has lots of them.
For subsystems that have just one branch, I agree that it makes sense
to develop against that one. Also for arm-soc, it can make sense
to base on one of the existing branches, but I prefer the default
to be to base on the -rc release so I can mix and match incoming
branches as needed.
Arnd
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-19 14:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-04-17 17:08 [PATCH v2 0/8] Second patchset for LPC32xx device tree conversion Roland Stigge
2012-04-17 17:08 ` [PATCH v2 1/8] ohci-nxp: Driver cleanup Roland Stigge
2012-04-17 20:36 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-04-17 21:03 ` Roland Stigge
2012-04-17 20:57 ` Dan Carpenter
2012-04-18 8:23 ` Roland Stigge
2012-04-18 4:55 ` Thierry Reding
2012-04-17 17:08 ` [PATCH v2 2/8] ohci-nxp: Device tree support Roland Stigge
2012-04-17 17:08 ` [PATCH v2 3/8] ARM: LPC32xx: clock.c update Roland Stigge
2012-04-17 21:09 ` Dan Carpenter
2012-04-18 8:33 ` Roland Stigge
2012-04-17 17:08 ` [PATCH v2 4/8] ARM: LPC32xx: Remove obsolete platform Kconfig Roland Stigge
2012-04-17 17:08 ` [PATCH v2 5/8] input: Device tree support for LPC32xx touchscreen Roland Stigge
2012-04-17 17:08 ` [PATCH v2 6/8] iio: lpc32xx-adc: Remove driver conflict due to device tree Roland Stigge
2012-04-17 17:08 ` [PATCH v2 7/8] ARM: LPC32xx: DTS files for device tree conversion Roland Stigge
2012-04-18 5:46 ` Thierry Reding
2012-04-18 8:10 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-04-18 8:36 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-04-17 17:08 ` [PATCH v2 8/8] ARM: LPC32xx: Device tree support Roland Stigge
2012-04-18 6:02 ` Thierry Reding
2012-04-18 8:15 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-04-18 12:30 ` Roland Stigge
2012-04-18 14:01 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-04-17 20:50 ` [PATCH v2 0/8] Second patchset for LPC32xx device tree conversion Dan Carpenter
2012-04-18 8:00 ` Roland Stigge
2012-04-18 8:06 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-04-18 9:36 ` Dan Carpenter
2012-04-18 11:00 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-04-18 12:14 ` Dan Carpenter
2012-04-18 16:56 ` Mark Brown
2012-04-19 14:21 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2012-04-18 10:45 ` Mark Brown
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=201204191421.29558.arnd@arndb.de \
--to=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=arm@kernel.org \
--cc=axel.lin@gmail.com \
--cc=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
--cc=devel@driverdev.osuosl.org \
--cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=kevin.wells@nxp.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-input@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marek.vasut@gmail.com \
--cc=srinivas.bakki@nxp.com \
--cc=stigge@antcom.de \
--cc=thierry.reding@avionic-design.de \
/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