On Wed, Mar 23 2011, Daniel Walker wrote: > On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 08:59 -0700, David Brown wrote: >> David Brown (16): >> msm: Add CPU queries >> msm: Generalize timer register mappings >> msm: Generalize QGIC registers >> msm: Add MSM 8960 cpu_is check >> Merge branch 'msm-uart' into for-next >> Merge branch 'msm-8960' into for-next >> Merge branch 'msm-sdcc' into for-next >> Merge branch 'msm-fb' into for-next >> Merge branch 'msm-8960' into msm-core >> msm: Remove broken register definition from trout >> msm: Warning fix in trout gpio board file >> Merge branch 'msm-core' into for-next >> Merge branch 'msm-core' into for-next >> Merge branch 'msm-core' into for-next >> msm: Use explicit GPLv2 licenses >> Merge remote branch 'rmk/for-linus' into for-linus > > Could you change the "for-next" name to something more interesting like > msm-for-linus .. I think it would be acceptable to just create > msm-for-linus during the merge window and merge all the sub-tree's into > that. I think the problem was that these trees came in, intended for linux-next, and were pulled into that branch. Then, I published that as the tree for the pull-request 'for-linus', but nothing was actually merged into that tree. I can do a separate merge into the 'for-linus' tree before the merge window, but then I won't be giving a pull request for the same commit as what has been being tested in linux-next. I'm not sure what is preferred here. Doing a separate merge at the end has the benefit of reducing the number of intermediate merges. The tree sha will be the same in either case, so it's really a matter what the history should look like. Thanks, David -- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
