[PATCH] ARM: sort select statements alphanumerically

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Sun, Oct 07, 2012 at 03:14:40PM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> On 17:22 Sat 06 Oct     , Russell King wrote:
> > This commit is likely to change as we get closer to the end of the merge
> > window, as other changes get merged into Linus' tree.  I will be refreshing
> > this from time to time, and keeping it out of linux-next, as it will cause
> > more pain than its worth to put it into linux-next.
> > 
> > Anyone who wants to give this a review to check that it's correct are welcome,
> > but I don't think it would be appropriate to collect attributation tags for
> > it, as this won't be the final patch.
> > 
> > This patch is intentionally broken to prevent Linus from applying it - this
> > is information only!
> > 
> > Anyone who wants to apply it can do so by first running this patch through:
> > 
> > 	sed 's/^-- /@@ /'
> > 
> >  arch/arm/Kconfig                  |  399 ++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> >  arch/arm/common/Kconfig           |    4 +-
> >  arch/arm/mach-at91/Kconfig        |   26 ++--
> this maybe conflict with pinctrl support

Of course it will - and this tells me that you did not read the comments
I left before the diffstat.  It's almost guaranteed to conflict with
virtually all the changes going into this merge window.

> Acked-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj at jcrosoft.com>

And this also confirms that too; I said I didn't want to add attributations
to it because you aren't going to be acking the patch which will eventually
be committed.

In sort, this patch _will_ be recreated by the script at the end of the
merge window, and whatever that patch ends up being is what will get
merged.  It's very likely (because of the inherent conflicts in doing
this) that it _will_ be different from this one.

What that means is if I add (your) acked-by to it, I will be adding it
to a different patch to the one you've sent this to.

What I want people to do with this is review it and make sure that the
script hasn't created any obvious mistakes; I've already done that but
the more eyes we get on it the better.