On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 01:16:04PM +0200, 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? Agree > > I'm now scouting my inbox for more candidates for this branch. Please > don't re-send the patches that have already been sent, unless you have > new versions of those, I have them all. Do send new versions, though. > > [1] git://github.com/virtuoso/linux-ci.git ci-for-greg > [2] https://github.com/virtuoso/linux-ci/commits/ci-for-greg > > Regards, > -- > Alex > -- Best Regards, Peter Chen -- 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
