[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120126232304.GA10259@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:23:04 +0000
From: Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: merge of the arm tree into the at91 tree
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 09:36:19AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> I noticed that the for-next branch of the arm tree has been merged into
> the at91 tree. My understanding (and Russell, please correct me if I am
> wrong) is that the for-next branch is *not* stable and may be rebased.
> This will cause all sorts of problems in linux-next in the future (and
> also when Russell or the arm=soc guys merge the at91 tree into theirs).
And has already been rebuilt (I won't use 'rebased' because that's really
not what happens to it.) I've already re-explained this to Nicolas. It's
equivalent to someone basing their work off linux-next and expecting to
have that pulled into some other tree.
What's even worse is that Nicolas has published this as an official
branch for other people.
> In fact, I am going to have problems today as Russell has already rebase
> his for-next branch. :-(
I suggest that you drop the at91 tree this time around if you get
conflicts.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists