Update to SCSI trees for Linux Next

Update to SCSI trees for Linux Next

[James Bottomley]

Hi Stephen

Just to let you know that SCSI is moving on to a single tree model from
now on.  The new tree is

git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jejb/scsi.git

And the branch for next is for-next.

Could you drop both the scsi-misc-2.6 and scsi-rc-fixes-2.6 tree, please
because I'll send everything through this for-next branch.

For the time being, could you keep the scsi-post-merge-2.6 tree?  It's
easier when resolving conflicts amongst other trees to use a separate
git tree (although we haven't actually had to use this one for a while).

Thanks,

James

Re: Update to SCSI trees for Linux Next

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 794 bytes --]

Hi James,

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 11:43:41 +0100 James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> wrote:
>
> Just to let you know that SCSI is moving on to a single tree model from
> now on.  The new tree is
> 
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jejb/scsi.git
> 
> And the branch for next is for-next.
> 
> Could you drop both the scsi-misc-2.6 and scsi-rc-fixes-2.6 tree, please
> because I'll send everything through this for-next branch.

Done.

> For the time being, could you keep the scsi-post-merge-2.6 tree?  It's
> easier when resolving conflicts amongst other trees to use a separate
> git tree (although we haven't actually had to use this one for a while).

No problem.

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: Update to SCSI trees for Linux Next

[Dan Williams]

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:43 AM, James Bottomley
<James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
> Hi Stephen
>
> Just to let you know that SCSI is moving on to a single tree model from
> now on.  The new tree is
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jejb/scsi.git
>
> And the branch for next is for-next.
>
> Could you drop both the scsi-misc-2.6 and scsi-rc-fixes-2.6 tree, please
> because I'll send everything through this for-next branch.
>
> For the time being, could you keep the scsi-post-merge-2.6 tree?  It's
> easier when resolving conflicts amongst other trees to use a separate
> git tree (although we haven't actually had to use this one for a while).

Speaking of resolving conflicts, are you looking to resolve conflicts
between scsi/fixes and development branches targeted at the next merge
window?  Or, would you rather ask the development branch to rebase on
top of latest Linus once scsi/fixes lands upstream?

My libsas development branch, if I base it on current Linus, will
conflict with the bits queued in scsi/fixes.

--
Dan