On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 09:34:57AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Sascha, > > On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:30:20 +0100 Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:52:18AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > > > It looks like most (if not all) of the i.MX tree has been merged into the > > > arm-soc (and Linus') tree, so could you please update the i.MX tree to > > > eliminate the conflicts I am getting. > > > > Did this. Sorry, I was not aware that there is something in this branch. > > Did you push it out? I just checked and it hasn't changed. Just to be > clear, I am fetching git://git.pengutronix.de/git/imx/linux-2.6.git > branch for-next and it hasn't changed since last September. I failed to wait until my push returned. It failed due to non-fast-forward pushing. Really fixed this now. > > Should I, instead, just remove that tree from linux-next and let you send > stuff just via the arm-soc (or arm)tree? Yes, that's probably best. That's what I do anyway. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | -- 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
