From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Rothwell Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] omap fixes for 2.6.33-rc3 Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 13:47:31 +1100 Message-ID: <20100109134731.a1bca240.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20100108180912.GC6831@atomide.com> <20100108182236.GE6831@atomide.com> <20100108222715.GC2879@atomide.com> <20100108225023.GD2879@atomide.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="PGP-SHA1"; boundary="Signature=_Sat__9_Jan_2010_13_47_31_+1100_Hw95CVMhFaGBIeaV" Return-path: Received: from chilli.pcug.org.au ([203.10.76.44]:56344 "EHLO smtps.tip.net.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751612Ab0AICri (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jan 2010 21:47:38 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20100108225023.GD2879@atomide.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Tony Lindgren Cc: Linus Torvalds , Paul Walmsley , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org --Signature=_Sat__9_Jan_2010_13_47_31_+1100_Hw95CVMhFaGBIeaV Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Tony, On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 14:50:23 -0800 Tony Lindgren wrote: > > Hmm, sounds like it might make sense to check for that in Stephen's > for-next tree then. Added Stephen to the loop, let's see if what he > thinks. I can certainly add hooks to my tree if someone can suggest what should be in them (I didn't get enough context here ...). That way I could send the tree maintainer a warning email letting them know something is fishy ... Of course, this only helps those who don't mind rebasing their trees, right? The non-rebasing tree maintainers should do these checks themselves. Maybe we could propogate a suggested (or mandatory) set of hooks? --=20 Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/ --Signature=_Sat__9_Jan_2010_13_47_31_+1100_Hw95CVMhFaGBIeaV Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAktH7kMACgkQjjKRsyhoI8yekgCgrH/rD3jyEDsv67aB3L9hb8ig ls4An2+HvTqM91K8Cb99yxdZPuiJKGlb =vk9i -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Sat__9_Jan_2010_13_47_31_+1100_Hw95CVMhFaGBIeaV-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sfr@canb.auug.org.au (Stephen Rothwell) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 13:47:31 +1100 Subject: [GIT PULL] omap fixes for 2.6.33-rc3 In-Reply-To: <20100108225023.GD2879@atomide.com> References: <20100108180912.GC6831@atomide.com> <20100108182236.GE6831@atomide.com> <20100108222715.GC2879@atomide.com> <20100108225023.GD2879@atomide.com> Message-ID: <20100109134731.a1bca240.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Tony, On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 14:50:23 -0800 Tony Lindgren wrote: > > Hmm, sounds like it might make sense to check for that in Stephen's > for-next tree then. Added Stephen to the loop, let's see if what he > thinks. I can certainly add hooks to my tree if someone can suggest what should be in them (I didn't get enough context here ...). That way I could send the tree maintainer a warning email letting them know something is fishy ... Of course, this only helps those who don't mind rebasing their trees, right? The non-rebasing tree maintainers should do these checks themselves. Maybe we could propogate a suggested (or mandatory) set of hooks? -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr at canb.auug.org.au http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: