On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 7:48 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sunday 14 August 2011, Olof Johansson wrote: >> >> Hi Arnd, >> >> Please pull the first set of tegra/board patches for 3.2: >> >> >> The following changes since commit e6a99d312687a42c077a9b8cb5e757f186edb1b9: >> >> Merge branch 'slab/urgent' of >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/penberg/slab-2.6 >> (2011-08-09 08:42:16 -0700) >> >> are available in the git repository at: >> >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/olof/tegra.git boards-for-3.2 >> > > Hi Olof, > > The contents all look good, but I'm undecided whether we should have > branches that are not based on a -rc release. In your case, it's > halfway between -rc1 and -rc2. > > Do others have an opinion? If we decide to take development branches > only when they are based on a proper -rc, I'll do the simple rebase > of the patches and push them out, otherwise I'll push them as they are. I guess it depends on what you and others prefer -- if you want to aggregate the branches in arm-soc.git through the development weeks, or if you prefer to get most of the merge requests when platform maintainers are getting ready for the merge window and feeding things up? Either is fine with me -- if it's easier for me to hold off the merge requests a while, then I'll start a for-next branch and ask Stephen to add it, and rebase it a few times up until when the merge request to arm-soc is sent. Maybe it's just easier for everyone to do it that way -- the drawback is that there's less visibility about what's about to go in until the merge requests start to drop in late in the cycle. The git history won't be quite as wide then either. -Olof -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
