On 02/28/2013 12:16 PM, Alexander Shishkin wrote: > Peter Chen <peter.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:47:34PM +0100, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: >>> On 02/26/2013 02:25 PM, Alexander Shishkin wrote: >>>> Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 02/26/2013 11:56 AM, Alexander Shishkin wrote: >>>>>> Peter Chen <peter.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Alex, >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>>> Do we have a chipidea repo which is queued for mainline? >>>>>>> We have several patchsets for chipidea these monthes, I >>>>>>> don't know their status. For me, I would like based >>>>>>> on your tree if it exists. >>>>>> >>>>>> I thought about it, but then it seems like having a separate branch is >>>>>> bound to be confusing to most people. I'd much rather prefer everything >>>>>> go to usb-next, and this is my current plan. Since Greg will start >>>>>> applying new stuff to usb-next after -rc1 is tagged, I'll send my >>>>>> current stash of patches for inclusion then. If your patchset, for >>>>> >>>>> Can we have a look at your queued patches? >>>> >>>> Sure, >>>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-usb&m=135902434508839 >>>> >>>>>> example, has conflicts with my stuff that's not merged, I'll try to take >>>>>> care of resolving the conflicts and submit everything to Greg. In other >>>>>> words, it should be always ok to base your chipidea patchsets on >>>>>> usb-next. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me know if this sounds reasonable to you. >>>>> >>>>> Michael has already done that work (some S-o-b form Michael are missing) >>>>> and rebased Sascha's and Peter's patches to current linus/master, see >>>>> this tree : >>>>> >>>>> http://git.pengutronix.de/?p=mgr/linux.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/chipidea-for-v3.10 >>>> >>>> Taking a quick look, quite some of those patches are not ready for >>>> inclusion yet. So if the question is, do we need a -next tree for all >>>> the chipidea patchsets floating around, it might be a good thing. But >>>> it's not what Peter was asking in the first place. >>> >>> I suggest that we have a branch that holds all chipidea patches that are >>> ready for mainline. Otherwise it's really hard to code any new features >> >> I agree. >> >> Alex, you can have a repo at github or any other places which is based >> on usb-next, and add it to MAINTAINERS. We can develop the new feature >> based on your repo. Greg can pull it directly if he agrees or you can send >> your queued patchset before every merge windows. > > Ok, let's try this. I have a linux-ci repo on github, might as well do > something useful with it [1], [2]. Currently, the branch called > "ci-for-greg" is where I stack patches that I'm planning to be sending > (via email) to Greg when the time is right. The "policy" is such that > it'll be rebased on top of Greg's usb-next and probably often, so no > fast forwards. Also patches may be dropped from it if necessary. Since > the branch is not for pulling, the "no rebase" rule doesn't apply. > > If you have comments/suggestions/etc for a patch that is in this branch, > please reply to the email with that patch on the mailing list and not > via github infrastructure. > > Sounds reasonable? go ahead. Marc -- Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 | Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
