From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753155AbaLIIVU (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2014 03:21:20 -0500 Received: from mail-ie0-f170.google.com ([209.85.223.170]:45843 "EHLO mail-ie0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752077AbaLIIVS (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2014 03:21:18 -0500 Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 08:21:12 +0000 From: Lee Jones To: Stephen Warren Cc: Arnd Bergmann , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Stephen Rothwell , Olof Johansson , Matthias Klein , Hauke Mehrtens , =?utf-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bcm2835 tree with the arm-soc tree Message-ID: <20141209082112.GQ3951@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> <5485E1EA.2070902@wwwdotorg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <5485E1EA.2070902@wwwdotorg.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 08 Dec 2014, Stephen Warren wrote: > 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. Yes, in this case eradicate == `git reset `. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog