From: David Brown <davidb@codeaurora.org>
To: Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Bryan Huntsman <bryanh@codeaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [Git pull] MSM for v2.6.39
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:10:42 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8yapqphhfml.fsf@huya.qualcomm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1300890191.6117.43.camel@m0nster> (Daniel Walker's message of "Wed, 23 Mar 2011 07:23:11 -0700")
On Wed, Mar 23 2011, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 08:59 -0700, David Brown wrote:
>> David Brown (16):
>> msm: Add CPU queries
>> msm: Generalize timer register mappings
>> msm: Generalize QGIC registers
>> msm: Add MSM 8960 cpu_is check
>> Merge branch 'msm-uart' into for-next
>> Merge branch 'msm-8960' into for-next
>> Merge branch 'msm-sdcc' into for-next
>> Merge branch 'msm-fb' into for-next
>> Merge branch 'msm-8960' into msm-core
>> msm: Remove broken register definition from trout
>> msm: Warning fix in trout gpio board file
>> Merge branch 'msm-core' into for-next
>> Merge branch 'msm-core' into for-next
>> Merge branch 'msm-core' into for-next
>> msm: Use explicit GPLv2 licenses
>> Merge remote branch 'rmk/for-linus' into for-linus
>
> Could you change the "for-next" name to something more interesting like
> msm-for-linus .. I think it would be acceptable to just create
> msm-for-linus during the merge window and merge all the sub-tree's into
> that.
I think the problem was that these trees came in, intended for
linux-next, and were pulled into that branch. Then, I published that as
the tree for the pull-request 'for-linus', but nothing was actually
merged into that tree.
I can do a separate merge into the 'for-linus' tree before the merge
window, but then I won't be giving a pull request for the same commit as
what has been being tested in linux-next. I'm not sure what is
preferred here. Doing a separate merge at the end has the benefit of
reducing the number of intermediate merges. The tree sha will be the
same in either case, so it's really a matter what the history should
look like.
Thanks,
David
--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-03-23 18:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-03-17 15:59 [Git pull] MSM for v2.6.39 David Brown
2011-03-23 14:23 ` Daniel Walker
2011-03-23 18:10 ` David Brown [this message]
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=8yapqphhfml.fsf@huya.qualcomm.com \
--to=davidb@codeaurora.org \
--cc=bryanh@codeaurora.org \
--cc=dwalker@fifo99.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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