[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140225124050.GA7571@lee--X1>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:40:50 +0000
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: "Opensource [Anthony Olech]" <anthony.olech.opensource@...semi.com>,
Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Dajun Chen <david.chen@...semi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 2/3] MFD: da9052: Add new DA9053 BC chip variant
> > I am. The trouble with basing your patches against -next is that it's
> > not stable, in that it is rebuilt every day. If your patches are
> > dependant on commits which haven't reached Mainline yet, then you
> > should rebase on the subsystem tree which they are contained in. All
> > patches in -next should be based on an -rc or a released kernel version.
>
> The advice here is usually that sending against -next is a good proxy
> for sending against the individual tree without having to figure out all
> the different trees - almost all of the time the effect is the same.
> This only applies when sending patches via e-mail, for git pulls it's an
> absolute no of course.
Good point. But it's worth reiterating that this should only be done
if you have dependencies which haven't yet reached Mainline.
--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
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