Hi Stephen, On 11/01/13 13:03, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:15:16 +0000 James Hogan <james.hogan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 10/01/13 23:34, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>> You really should not base development work on linux-next and before I >>> can include it there you will need to rebase it onto Linus' tree (or some >>> other tree that does not rebase). Its OK to test by doing a merge with >>> linux-next ... >> >> Thanks for the info Stephen. So I suppose if the patchset depended on >> things in -next the normal way to do it would be to merge in the >> individual trees I needed first? > > Yep, but please let the maintainers of those trees know that you expect > their tree to not be rebased. Or, if if they aren't really dependencies > just conflicts, then leave the other tree out and let me and Linus fix > the conflicts when we merge your tree. > Okay, thanks. Due to the recent merge window the dependencies are trivial at the moment, and it wouldn't introduce build breakage to exclude them (i.e. it's just removing selects from Kconfig files and defconfigs that have been removed in linux-next), so I'll exclude those changes for now and deal with them later. Cheers James
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
