Hi, 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, I've rebased the metag tree from linux-next onto the master branch of Al's signal tree (to get Vineet's GENERIC_SIGALTSTACK fix and GENERIC_SIGALTSTACK's eventual removal). git://github.com/jahogan/metag-linux.git branch: metag-core tag: metag-core-v3.1 Cheers James
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
