On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 07:50:51PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote: > On 09/24/2011 12:04 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 09:21:20PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote: > >> But if there are more trees depending on the tree, then OK, I will live > >> with that ;). > > > > For the tty tree, I really doubt it, but I am not sure (rumor has it > > that some people are basing on it, but that might just be rumor.) > > Ok, for the other uart patches I have, it would be convenient for me to > have the possibility of rebase. Would you mind if I add something like > uart-cleanup tree to the -next tree and will have the patches there > until I send them to you? linux-next is for stuff that people are confident will show up in the next release, not for general "let's throw it out there to see if it works" type thing. > Just for the purpose of fine tuning (and rebasing) if something needs to > be fixed in them. The code is so complex, that I'm afraid I omitted some > semi-hidden dependency. And it would be great to fix patches like when I > used to work with the -mm tree. Perhaps you should just work with Andrew and put these in -mm for now until you feel comfortable that it's all worked out and no rebasing would be needed anymore? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html