On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 08:06:16AM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 17 April 2012, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 07:08:19PM +0200, Roland Stigge wrote: > > > Applies to v3.4-rc3 > > > > > > > This probably applies fine (the previous version did a couple days > > ago), but it's always best to submit patches against linux-next. > > The 3.4 kernel is in -rc already so this is 3.5 material. > > I disagree. The patches won't get applied on -next, they get applied > on an -rc release, so they should be submitted against that version > as well. I agree that it makes sense to test patches against -next > when there is reason to believe there might be conflicts, but it's > not mandatory. When you know about conflicts against other patches > that are already in -next, I suggest listing them in the cover > letter (the patch 0/x) and suggest a resolution. > I'm not sure I understand. I thought everyone used the develop against linux-next and backport the fixes model. Are we going to try merge these in 3.4? It will still spend some time in linux-next before we submit it, right? To be honest, I mostly am familiar with staging/ where driver wide white space cleanups are the norm. Working against linux-next is the only option for us or otherwise the conflicts would be too much. regards, dan carpenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
