linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] Second patchset for LPC32xx device tree conversion

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:21:29 +0000
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
	Roland Stigge <stigge@...com.de>, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
	srinivas.bakki@....com, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, thierry.reding@...onic-design.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kevin.wells@....com,
	marek.vasut@...il.com, arm@...nel.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
	axel.lin@...il.com, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] Second patchset for LPC32xx device tree conversion

On Wednesday 18 April 2012, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:00:39AM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 
> > 1. develop on -rc
> > 2. merge with latest -next, test and make sure it works there
> > 3. submit for review against -rc
> > 4. have patches included in -next once reviewed, but based on -rc
> > 5. when merge window opens, have patches sent for upstream inclusion
> 
> Steps 3 and 4 should be to submit against whatever branch is appropriate
> for the subsystem and driver - if people follow this process they're
> going to get bounced back by a fair proportion of maintainers, -rc isn't
> universally what people are looking for so people should be aware that
> they need to pay attention here.  
> 
> Generally I'd say the development version is a safer bet than -rc for
> most subsystems.

Right. The description above was mostly done for the lpc32xx case,
which is going to get merged through the arm-soc tree and that doesn't
have a single development branch but instead has lots of them.

For subsystems that have just one branch, I agree that it makes sense
to develop against that one. Also for arm-soc, it can make sense
to base on one of the existing branches, but I prefer the default
to be to base on the -rc release so I can mix and match incoming
branches as needed.

	Arnd
--
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/