From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 11:55:25 -0700
Subject: [U-Boot] U-Boot ARM merge strategy
In-Reply-To: <20090425170829.GA30476@game.jcrosoft.org>
References: <200904121544.23683.david-b@pacbell.net>
	<49F2B6B9.7040300@googlemail.com>
	<20090425170829.GA30476@game.jcrosoft.org>
Message-ID: <200904251155.25337.david-b@pacbell.net>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

On Saturday 25 April 2009, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> For me when the first version of a [patch] is send after the close of the merge and
> it's not a bug fix, then it will go to the next MW. The only exception will be
> if the patch come from an announce or a thread discussion and/or really improve
> U-Boot. Otherwise no exception.

Wiki might usefully include this as part of that release
cycle page that Wolfgang pointed out:

 * Bug fixes coming in after a merge window closes may
   still be included in the upcoming release if they are
   high enough priority.

 * Other patches coming in after the merge window will be
   held until the next merge window, possibly in a -next
   branch of a custodian tree.

 * Maintainers may, infrequently, make exceptions to those
   merge policies.

It'd still be good to make the "merge window ended" state
more visible, e.g. through *some* GIT tag.  IMNSHO.

- Dave