On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 03:40, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 08:18, Jonathan Cameron wrote: >> On 10/28/10 02:44, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 14:17, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>>> Hopefully there shouldn't be any roadblocks now before pushing to GregKH. >>>> I'll do so in a day or two if there aren't any issues. >>> >>> ive bounced it over to him now >> >> I'm guessing this lot *just* missed the merge window. ÂDespite all Mike's >> hard work they were proposed for merging very late so we can't really complain! >> >> Anyhow, this is not necessarily a bad thing as it will mean they sit in >> staging-next for a couple of months and we can do a lot of needed cleaning up >> before the next merge window. ÂThe trick is probably going to be to synchronize >> this chunk of the blackfin tree against staging-next so that we can apply any >> accepted/reviewed patches to both trees as we move forward. >> >> I can set up an additional 'in between' tree if that is helpful? (kernel.org hosted) >> It would contain whatever we have sent on to Greg KH but based against mainline >> rather than linux-next (with no rebasing but with merges to move with the release >> candidates as they appear). Hence it would effectively be iio-next though formally >> that role will still be handled by Greg's staging-next tree. > > as long as the patches are in staging-next, i think things are fine. > with the bulk of the code merged, what we have left should be a lot > easier to sync/work on. greg has pulled things into his staging-next tree, so hopefully we can get back to focusing on technical details and not API thrashing now :) -mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
