Hi, On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 17:07:54 -0700 Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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. I am talking about the branch that Arnd says should be merged into both the arm-soc and gpio trees. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
pgp9HrVNOmOsm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
