From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jerry Van Baren <gerald.vanbaren@ge.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:44:15 -0400
Subject: [U-Boot] U-Boot ARM merge strategy,
 was: there are non-DM6446 DaVinci chips
In-Reply-To: <20090425104823.38CCA83420E8@gemini.denx.de>
References: <200904121544.23683.david-b@pacbell.net>	<200904250003.51845.david-b@pacbell.net>	<49F2B954.5040408@gmail.com>	<200904250105.41050.david-b@pacbell.net>
	<20090425104823.38CCA83420E8@gemini.denx.de>
Message-ID: <49F5B6AF.5060606@ge.com>
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

Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear David Brownell,
> 
> In message <200904250105.41050.david-b@pacbell.net> you wrote:
>> Yes.  The issue is needing to guess what's up ... so for
>> example, I seem to observe that "merge window closed" must
>> not be the same as "first RC is out", which isn't how the
>> Linux process works.  But that's the only example I've
>> seen for how the new u-boot cycles should work...
> 
> Maybe I pout a little more meaning in the words  "release  candiate".
> After  the  end  of  a  merge  window,  there is usually still a long
> backlog of patches that has not been merged, and after that there are
> several rounds of debugging / bug fixing needed. IMO it makes  little
> sense to call anything in this state a "release candiate".
> 
> That's why we still have no "rc" in the current release cycle.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Wolfgang Denk

Make sense on "rc" not really being a release candidate.  How about 
tagging "mc" for "Merge Closed"?

gvb