On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 15:58:26 -0700 Colin Cross <ccross@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Mark Brown > <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 09:50:16AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > I wouldn't even need to create a branch, that doesn't make any practical > > difference over working directly with the commit ID. ÂColin wasn't > > enthusiastic about merging the fairly active ASoC tree into Tegra, and > > the Tegra side changes depend on other Tegra changes so the reverse > > merge was an issue also. The advantage of a branch would be that if this was ongoing and fixes needed to be applied to the asoc code, the they could be applied to that branch and remerged into both trees. This actually happened this time round with the tip:irq tree and the net tree. > > Given how trivial the change is it may as well just get dropped in in > > -rc1 - I really don't understand the handwringing here. Well, I wasn't aware of how much was involved ... > The only issue is that the branch that is being merged by linux-next > is untestable on it's own. But we can ignore the problem until the > asoc tree is merged into master, at which point the problem goes away. > I plan to send a second pull request to Linus as soon as asoc is in, > we shouldn't need to wait for rc1. > > We made sure the patches that depend on the asoc tree are at the top > of the stack for 2.6.39. I do my testing on the last patch that > compiles without asoc (which is what got pulled into master today), > and rely on the people working with the board that depends on asoc to > test the last few patches. OK, thanks guys. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Attachment:
pgpTBrw_Z1TLz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
