Hi Russell, On Wed, 6 May 2009 08:15:48 +0100, Russell King wrote: > Since defconfig updates are always going to create lots of noise, and > the files are normally out of date, the *only* sensible way to handle > updates is to have one tree dealing with them per architecture. > > Spreading them across multiple trees and then expecting merges to sort > out the resulting mess is unreasonable; they just change far too much > when updates happen. Moreover, defconfig updates should be in their > own separate commit and not combined with other changes. I fail to see how you can handle configuration option renames gracefully with your proposed model. -- Jean Delvare -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
