linux-kernel - Re: New MFD tree for linux-next

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Mon, 18 Mar 2013 10:45:20 +1100
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: New MFD tree for linux-next

Hi Samuel,

On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 00:39:07 +0100 Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> > I assume that you are still using the for-next branch?
> I will update for-next branch to be in sync with mfd-next until the 3.10 merge
> window closes. After that I'll probably delete the mfd-2.6.git tree.

I meant "I assume that I should still fetch the for-next branch
of ...sameo/mfd-next.git".  If that has changed, please let me know.

> > What branch should I use of that?
> Ah, I didn't see that the remote tree still carries the mfd-2.6 branches, I'll
> remove them.
> Please use master.

OK.  I will do that from tomorrow.

> > BTW, those two trees look very similar (in fact "diff -u <(git ls-remote
> > mfd) <(git ls-remote mfd-fixes)" only shows a couple of differences in
> > all the refs).  You do realise that I can use 2 different branches of one
> > tree, right (as can others)?
> I understand that :) But using 2 trees rather than 2 separate branches is more
> convenient to my personal workflow.

No worries.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@...b.auug.org.au

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped