subarch maintainers: please send 3.3 pull requests for arm-soc
linus.walleij at linaro.org
Wed Dec 7 10:31:58 EST 2011
Copying in Viresh Kumar (SPEAr) and Kristoffer Ericson (SA1100), can
you add them to your master subarch maintainer list?
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> Let me first say I'm very happy with the bug fixes I received for the 3.2
> cycle. I'm about to send another bunch of those upstream now, and it's
> good to see how everyone is now placing the stable tags in the patches
> where necessary. I've been a bit slow in sending them out for -rc3/rc4
> after I returned from a lot of traveling and it was very good that
> Olof could handle the fixes for -rc2 before that.
> However, looking at the for-next branch in arm-soc, we have very few
> patches in total (thanks again to those of you who sumitted 3.3
> stuff already):
> ~/linux-arm$ git branch
> ~/linux-arm$ git log --oneline --no-merges fixes..for-next | wc -l
> We are close to -rc5 now, so I would hope to have the majority of the
> patches that are coming for 3.3 in there by now. I realize that there
> is a lot of stuff that everyone is still working on, but there has
> to be more than this that you are happy to go into arm-soc already.
> Don't worry too much about bugs you are still looking for. All patches
> that are reviewed, ready to go into linux-next, and don't need to
> be rebased any more should go into arm-soc already.
> As usual, please split the pull requests into separate branches
> based on the type (bug fix, cleanup, new feature) and type of
> change (driver, board, soc, platform, ...). When you have
> interdependencies between the branches (e.g. a new feature depending
> on a cleanup), send one pull request for each branch and describe
> explictly why there is a dependency and in which order the pull
> requests should go. In the more common case that there are conflicts
> between branches (e.g. two branches doing similar but independent
> changes to the same file), base all conflicting branches on the same
> -rc release and let us resolve the conflict in arm-soc. Sascha likes
> to provide a merge changeset for reference. This is very much
> appreciated for any complex merges, but in most simple cases it's
> not necessary.
> If you have dependencies or known conflicts with branches that don't
> go into arm-soc (e.g. Russell's ARM tree or Grant's DT tree), we
> can handle that, too, by importing the dependency as a separate
> branch into arm-soc and delaying the submission of your branch
> until the other one was merged, but you need to make sure that
> the branch you import does not get rebased any more, and you must
> not just cherry-pick patches from another branch.
> Finally, please address any arm-soc pull requests to both Olof
> and me, as we are sharing the load for 3.3. I have handled all
> pull requests since 3.2-rc2, but I expect things to get more
> busy between now and the merge window, so we should be prepared
> to split the work.
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
More information about the linux-arm-kernel