From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marek Vasut Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 20:53:11 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] Pull request for u-boot-arm -> u-boot? In-Reply-To: References: <5367C06C.3060307@wwwdotorg.org> Message-ID: <201405052053.11241.marex@denx.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Monday, May 05, 2014 at 08:12:18 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Fabio Estevam wrote: > > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: > >> Albert, > >> > >> I was wondering when the next pull request for u-boot-arm/master -> > >> u-boot/master was likely to be? > >> > >> I asked because some changes to the Tegra USB driver went through the > >> u-boot-tegra/master and hence are now in u-boot-arm/master, but not in > >> u-boot-usb/master. I have some more USB driver changes which rely on the > >> earlier USB patches, and these should really go through > >> u-boot-usb/master rather than the Tegra/ARM tree. For this to happen, > >> u-boot-usb/master needs to contain the patches currently in > >> u-boot-arm/master, and the best way for that to happen is for those > >> patches to get into u-boot/master so that u-boot-usb/master can merge > >> them. > >> > >> Or, should Marek just merge u-boot-arm/master into his tree directly? > > > > Or should we have a 'u-boot-next' tree using the same concept as the > > kernel 'linux-next'? > > Please, u-boot-next! > > It is clear we need this to scale the pull model. As Stephen already explained, u-boot-next solves nothing. U-boot-next will actually be explicitly unhelpful here because I won't be able to work on top of it and then send PRs to Tom . This just cannot work as it would break history . Best regards, Marek Vasut