From: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>,
linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>
Subject: Re: linux-next: merge of the arm tree into the at91 tree
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:56:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F2274CA.7020809@atmel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120127093619.f2c90c6aa8b542134a157956@canb.auug.org.au>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 01/26/2012 11:36 PM, Stephen Rothwell :
> Hi all,
>
> 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).
>
> In fact, I am going to have problems today as Russell has already
> rebase his for-next branch. :-(
>
> I assume that the merge was done to fix some conflicts or pick up
> some functionality that is in Russell's tree. This should be done
> by merging topic branch(es) of that tree that Russell has
> explicitly said are stable.
Yes, I was anticipating a stable branch from Russell and never should
have pushed into a branch that would have gone to linux-next: My
mistake, sorry.
Note that my intention was not to use this branch or one based on
rmk/for-next in any "pull request". It was just a hint for people that
wanted to work on at91 for 3.4...
So, Stephen, can I ask you to remove the at91-next branch from your
pull list. For the moment we can rely on arm-soc guys to experiment
our changes in linux-next. It may be simpler for everyone.
thanks for your understanding, best regards,
- --
Nicolas Ferre
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPInTFAAoJEAf03oE53VmQ01UIALIkAxoj3Oxou45+Ts0hjqCk
ddQpqXsoZt44B/b+M+b2wPKK+stmjAVXT8KQJporgckmJyatc/H3BOdaCw5a4rGR
PPrBjEZRx+cH6IXnzII2b73MkdvmKrICOlKpcuIlJiXPcpWet0J1K4lmMWxDPC2D
zGeTFMqqUYMOxxADtRZhsHo/ryZivtaZf9LfYS5pYc7u4vhqjkCt8q07NabgIRaL
GpfyXSLFl30Sqx53Di6DLr0OUUmHGPvjDj1xR3yqdeXtO9vpoiwZequlVX+PYboL
S6OUPYjrDy8uRTNNkz1X8erruOx/y0T87/l4SHt28Aoz9p9sobcykcyRqQyHGJw=
=YhKe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-27 9:56 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
2012-01-27 9:56 ` Nicolas Ferre [this message]
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=4F2274CA.7020809@atmel.com \
--to=nicolas.ferre@atmel.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=olof@lixom.net \
--cc=plagnioj@jcrosoft.com \
--cc=rmk@arm.linux.org.uk \
--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