From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932225Ab1CWSKH (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:10:07 -0400 Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.251]:23762 "EHLO wolverine02.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755392Ab1CWSKF (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:10:05 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6294"; a="81438360" From: David Brown To: Daniel Walker Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Bryan Huntsman Subject: Re: [Git pull] MSM for v2.6.39 References: <8yazkotpwk6.fsf@huya.qualcomm.com> <1300890191.6117.43.camel@m0nster> Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:10:42 -0700 In-Reply-To: <1300890191.6117.43.camel@m0nster> (Daniel Walker's message of "Wed, 23 Mar 2011 07:23:11 -0700") Message-ID: <8yapqphhfml.fsf@huya.qualcomm.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 23 2011, Daniel Walker wrote: > On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 08:59 -0700, David Brown wrote: >> David Brown (16): >> msm: Add CPU queries >> msm: Generalize timer register mappings >> msm: Generalize QGIC registers >> msm: Add MSM 8960 cpu_is check >> Merge branch 'msm-uart' into for-next >> Merge branch 'msm-8960' into for-next >> Merge branch 'msm-sdcc' into for-next >> Merge branch 'msm-fb' into for-next >> Merge branch 'msm-8960' into msm-core >> msm: Remove broken register definition from trout >> msm: Warning fix in trout gpio board file >> Merge branch 'msm-core' into for-next >> Merge branch 'msm-core' into for-next >> Merge branch 'msm-core' into for-next >> msm: Use explicit GPLv2 licenses >> Merge remote branch 'rmk/for-linus' into for-linus > > Could you change the "for-next" name to something more interesting like > msm-for-linus .. I think it would be acceptable to just create > msm-for-linus during the merge window and merge all the sub-tree's into > that. I think the problem was that these trees came in, intended for linux-next, and were pulled into that branch. Then, I published that as the tree for the pull-request 'for-linus', but nothing was actually merged into that tree. I can do a separate merge into the 'for-linus' tree before the merge window, but then I won't be giving a pull request for the same commit as what has been being tested in linux-next. I'm not sure what is preferred here. Doing a separate merge at the end has the benefit of reducing the number of intermediate merges. The tree sha will be the same in either case, so it's really a matter what the history should look like. Thanks, David -- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.