On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 12:40:50AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday 19 August 2009, Paul Mundt wrote: > > Argh, and rebased in the process, again. This is now the second time in > > as many days this has been rebased, meaning I have to throw away my topic > > branch and re-create. I thought this was going to remain stable? I would > > like the SH runtime PM code to get some coverage in -next, but I can't > > merge it in to my tree if the suspend tree keeps rebasing every day. > > Well, my linux-next branch is not to guaranteed to be stable, just like the > entire linux-next tree. > > Once the patch stops making trouble, I'll move it into my for-linus branch, > which _is_ guaranteed not to be rebased (in fact it's never rebased). > > I haven't done it yet exactly because of these build problems. Please wait > for a couple of days more for things to settle down. > Ah, ok, I misunderstood the intention of your -next branch. I'll wait for it to cool off, thanks. ;-) -- 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
