On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi all, > > On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 21:36:44 +0200 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Monday 08 April 2013, Stephen Warren wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Should do the trick, if we can make sure that your tree is merged >> > >> prior to my patches. >> > > >> > > I'm not sure but I think, arm-soc tree should be merged into mainline before others... >> > > >> > >> Can you put it into your tree for 3.10? >> > >> >> > > I did, so it should be fine. >> > > >> > >> > You may want to discuss how to handle this dependency with the arm-soc >> > maintainers (CC'd). >> >> I'm fine with putting the same branch into arm-soc as well as the gpio tree >> and anything else that might need it, that tends to be the least invasive >> way. > > Just a reminder: that had better be the exact same branch and that branch > had better never be rebased/rewritten ... Sorry, which branch are we talking about - is it the one I published for -next initially? If so wouldn't it be simpler to withdraw it and have Grant integrate the patches in his branch? Since no one depends on them for now anyway... I remember rebasing it once some time ago to add Acked-bys, but it hasn't changed since then. Alex. -- 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
