On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 03:57:54PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:01:46PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Acked-by: Jean Delvare <khali@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > MAINTAINERS | 1 + > > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > > index 2533fc4..a3c936c 100644 > > --- a/MAINTAINERS > > +++ b/MAINTAINERS > > @@ -2626,6 +2626,7 @@ M: "Ben Dooks (embedded platforms)" <ben-linux@xxxxxxxxx> > > L: linux-i2c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > W: http://i2c.wiki.kernel.org/ > > T: quilt kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/jdelvare/linux-2.6/jdelvare-i2c/ > > +T: git git://git.fluff.org/bjdooks/linux.git > > This is wrong. This is the same tree which I pull ARM stuff from, so it > needs qualifying with a branch name. $(git ls-remote git://git.fluff.org/bjdooks/linux.git) suggests two candidates: for-linus/i2c next-i2c And I think for now this is only parsed by humans and everbody should be able to notice that e.g. "next-s3c" doesn't contain i2c patches in the presence of the two above branches. So unless there is a syntax to specify more than one branch I suggest to keep it as is. Or should we only list next-i2c? Ben, what do you think? (Maybe we can just make it: T: git git://git.fluff.org/bjdooks/linux.git for-linus/i2c T: git git://git.fluff.org/bjdooks/linux.git next-i2c but this is a bit too much IMHO. (Who volunteers to list all branches of tip in MAINTAINERS? ;-)) Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
