From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergey Lapin Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 17:20:48 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot] [RFC][PULL-REQ] MTD update In-Reply-To: <20121229215250.A7044200FAC@gemini.denx.de> References: <20121228121741.GA29289@build.ihdev.net> <20121228135953.GA14134@bill-the-cat> <20121229205429.GA9924@build.ihdev.net> <20121229215250.A7044200FAC@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: <20121229222048.GB9924@build.ihdev.net> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:52:50PM +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Sergey Lapin, > > In message <20121229205429.GA9924@build.ihdev.net> you wrote: > > > > > First, while I appreciate the effort, I'd rather us sync with v3.7 > > > release rather than the in-flux v3.8. Second, can you please look at > > > the archives about how we've done these re-syncs before? I really don't > > > want to take a single giant patch and we're usually able to break this > > > up into chunks. Thanks! > > current v3.8 version is not that much different from v3.7, and very few, > > but interesting changes there, so I hope we're not going for version > > numbers here. > > Tom is right when asking to use a stable kernel tree version as > starting point. Said "interesting changes" may be added in a second > step, once we have proven that the stable code is actually working > stable for us, too. OK, will rebase. > > > I try to produce proper splitted version, but it is not going to be > > bisectable then. > > I cannot see why this would have to be the case. Bisectability has > to be maintained. Well, if you mean, by bisectable, that it will compile, then yes, it can be done, but I still can't find a way to properly split patch for it to obey to reasoning behind bisect, in this case. All the best, S.