From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752194AbcAEWwG (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jan 2016 17:52:06 -0500 Received: from avon.wwwdotorg.org ([70.85.31.133]:56150 "EHLO avon.wwwdotorg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751526AbcAEWwE (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jan 2016 17:52:04 -0500 Subject: Re: Including Raspberry Pi -next trees in linux-next To: Stephen Rothwell , Eric Anholt References: <87fuyozzax.fsf@eliezer.anholt.net> <87d1tfrdu0.fsf@eliezer.anholt.net> <568C2619.20705@wwwdotorg.org> <3082544.lZk2r7IkWv@wuerfel> <20160106093239.21848a48@canb.auug.org.au> Cc: Arnd Bergmann , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Florian Fainelli , linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Stephen Warren Message-ID: <568C4938.1010609@wwwdotorg.org> Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 15:52:40 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160106093239.21848a48@canb.auug.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01/05/2016 03:32 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Eric, > > On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 22:26:33 +0100 Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> >> On Tuesday 05 January 2016 13:22:49 Stephen Warren wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> branches: >>>>>> drm-vc4-next >>>>>> bcm2835-dt-next >>>>>> bcm2835-soc-next >>>>>> bcm2835-drivers-next >>>>>> bcm2385-defconfig-next >>>>>> (bcm2835-maintainers-next is a placeholder since we have nothing for it >>>>>> this round) >>> >>> Typically maintainers merge everything together into a single "for-next" >>> to maintain a reasonable set of branches. I guess it doesn't affect me >>> so my opinion isn't too relevant though:-) >> >> In my experience the common for-next branch works best because >> you can change the set of branches that get merged into it as >> needed. If there are 6 branches today, it's quite likely that there >> will be another one in the future and if only one branch gets >> merged into for-next, you don't need to worry about updating the list. > > Certainly, that would be easier for me. Though you may want to keep > the drm-vc4-next branch separate since that get merged via a different > tree (and can appear at a different point in my merge list). > > It does mean an extra step for you i.e. you would need to merge all the > relevant branches into the single "for-next" branch, but that should > not be too big an imposition. FWIW, I almost always build/test the for-next branch rather than (or sometimes in addition to) the individual branches, and since I do so much with that branch, I use some scripts to automate generating it, and pushing all the branches to kernel.org. The Tegra version of those scripts is at: > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/tegra/maint-scripts.git/tree/ In particular, see merge-linux-tegra.sh and its configuration file tegra-branches.sh.dot. Also push-linux-tegra.sh does all the pushes.