From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: davidb@codeaurora.org (David Brown) Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 21:11:24 -0700 Subject: experience with the new arm-soc workflow (Was: Re: [Ksummit-2011-discuss] ARM Maintainers workshop at Kernel Summit) 2011 In-Reply-To: References: <20110806212932.GT31521@pengutronix.de> Message-ID: <20110807041124.GA6410@huya.qualcomm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sun, Aug 07, 2011 at 12:13:48AM +0200, Micha? Miros?aw wrote: > I, as another contributor, share Uwe's point of view. The problem with > cleanups vs features is that either usually depends on the other. > Fixes are a different beasts and they usually go in asynchronously > (and quicker) to development changes. The split fixes/development > works well in networking area (net and net-next trees). Maybe we are thinking about two different kinds of cleanups. Cleanups that would be closely associated with a new feature do make sense to me to keep together. This is the kind of thing where code is cleaned up in order to make it easier/cleaner to add the new code. I don't think this makes sense to have in another branch. But, there is also a lot of code going on now that is just cleaning things up, and it makes sense for this to be in a separate branch. David -- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.