From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753111Ab2A0J4n (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2012 04:56:43 -0500 Received: from newsmtp5.atmel.com ([204.2.163.5]:37479 "EHLO sjogate2.atmel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751933Ab2A0J4l (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2012 04:56:41 -0500 Message-ID: <4F2274CA.7020809@atmel.com> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:56:26 +0100 From: Nicolas Ferre Organization: atmel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111229 Thunderbird/9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Rothwell , Russell King CC: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , Olof Johansson Subject: Re: linux-next: merge of the arm tree into the at91 tree References: <20120127093619.f2c90c6aa8b542134a157956@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: <20120127093619.f2c90c6aa8b542134a157956@canb.auug.org.au> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org -----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-----