From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Williams Subject: Re: Update to SCSI trees for Linux Next Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:21:09 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1335177821.4191.17.camel@dabdike.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mail-yw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.213.46]:43911 "EHLO mail-yw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758898Ab2DZUVK convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:21:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1335177821.4191.17.camel@dabdike.lan> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: James Bottomley Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:43 AM, James Bottomley wrote: > Hi Stephen > > Just to let you know that SCSI is moving on to a single tree model fr= om > now on. =A0The 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, ple= ase > because I'll send everything through this for-next branch. > > For the time being, could you keep the scsi-post-merge-2.6 tree? =A0I= t'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 whil= e). 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