On Friday 11 May 2012, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > pinctrl-mergebase-20120418 is not enough for me. I need mxs and dummy > > states support. So if your devel branch will never be rebased, we can > > simply ask Arnd and Olof to get that as the dependent branch? > > Hm, yes the devel branch is getting real stable now, so I will only add things > on top. > > Basically the for-next branch is supposed to be even more stable, > but right now it's a copy of devel. > > ARM SoC guys: how do you want the pinctrl deps? I can make > a tag today if that is preferred. No need for a signed tag, since we're not going to submit you changes upstream. Knowing that we can pull in the for-next branch is good enough, so we'll do that for anything that needs it. > Also: short-cut to another subject: how have you other guys managed > this? By e.g.: > > git fetch <pinctrl tree> > > git checkout -b my-pinwork v3.4-rc4 > git merge pinctrl-tag > (develop develop) > > Or: > > git checkout -b my-pinwork pinctrl-tag > > ? > > I was a bit uncertain on how to do this for the pending Ux500 > stuff so better ask. I merged it for now but maybe it's better if > I just base the whole pullrequest on top of a stable pinctrl > branch? No strong preference on my side. I've seen both ways getting done. In arm-soc we try to do a 'git pull --log --no-ff' for all changes that are being pulled into one of the main next/* branches, just like torvalds does when he pulls in branches from maintainers. Arnd -- 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
