lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 0/8] Second patchset for LPC32xx device tree conversion
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 08:06:16AM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 April 2012, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 07:08:19PM +0200, Roland Stigge wrote:
> > > Applies to v3.4-rc3
> > >
> >
> > This probably applies fine (the previous version did a couple days
> > ago), but it's always best to submit patches against linux-next.
> > The 3.4 kernel is in -rc already so this is 3.5 material.
>
> I disagree. The patches won't get applied on -next, they get applied
> on an -rc release, so they should be submitted against that version
> as well. I agree that it makes sense to test patches against -next
> when there is reason to believe there might be conflicts, but it's
> not mandatory. When you know about conflicts against other patches
> that are already in -next, I suggest listing them in the cover
> letter (the patch 0/x) and suggest a resolution.
>

I'm not sure I understand. I thought everyone used the develop
against linux-next and backport the fixes model. Are we going to
try merge these in 3.4? It will still spend some time in linux-next
before we submit it, right?

To be honest, I mostly am familiar with staging/ where driver wide
white space cleanups are the norm. Working against linux-next is
the only option for us or otherwise the conflicts would be too
much.

regards,
dan carpenter



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-04-18 22:37    [W:0.153 / U:0.204 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site