Re: [GIT PULL] intel-gpio for 5.11-1

[Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 11:57 AM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > And that patch was on my fixes branch, which went into v5.10-rc4,
> > so in order to have the base commit in the devel tree I had to merge
> > in v5.10-rc4.
>
> I based solely on your gpio/for-next as has been stated in the cover letter.
> So, the PR might have been applied on top of your gpio/for-next without any
> additional merge required.

OK but my for-next isn't what is going to be merged by Torvalds so there
is some misunderstanding here.

In my tree "for-next" does not mean "for the next kernel that Torvalds
is going to release", it means "for the linux-next integration tree".

What is going into v5.11 is "devel" and that is why I'm always talking
about pulling stuff into devel etc.

for-next is created when I merged a few patches like this:

> git checkout for-next
> git reset --hard fixes
> git merge devel

(Procedure to create integration branch recommended by
Stephen Rothwell at one point.)

This is why your pull request work fine anyways if I merge in -rc4
because then "devel" will contain all commits from these two
branches at that point.

> I admit that PR automatic text is a bit deviated (it has been taken from wrong
> base, note that tag is correct nevertheless). I will look forward to amend my
> scripts.

Don't worry about it.

Maybe I need to think about how I name stuff.

Should I rename the branch "for-next" to "for-sjr-next" and
rename "devel" to "for-torvalds-next" then "fixes"
into "for-torvalds-current" or something
so it is crystal clear what they are for?

The community doesn't really have an established standard
here.

Yours,
Linus Walleij