On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:01:03 -0600 James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-12-22 at 09:48 +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > > > > I think what James meant is to rebase over linux-next when cutting the > > patches in order to send them to the different maintainers over email. > > In that case linux-next is perfect because you are sure none of the > > patches will conflict with any maintainer and you do that all in one > > place. Since you are not merging then linux-next volatility does not > > matter. Unless there are conflict resolutions in the linux-next tree (and there are a few) that involve the files in the generated patch. In that case the patch may not apply cleanly to any of the individual trees. > The point is that it's hard to work out where all the maintainer trees Hopefully you can glean that information from the MAINTAINERS file or the Trees file in any linux-next tree (available via git-web if not from the tree itself). Just pointing out the possible problems ... -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Attachment:
pgpmiXgvm2zqI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
