From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752087AbcAEWcn (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jan 2016 17:32:43 -0500 Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:41918 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751966AbcAEWcl (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jan 2016 17:32:41 -0500 Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 09:32:39 +1100 From: Stephen Rothwell To: Eric Anholt Cc: Arnd Bergmann , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Stephen Warren , Florian Fainelli , linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Including Raspberry Pi -next trees in linux-next Message-ID: <20160106093239.21848a48@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: <3082544.lZk2r7IkWv@wuerfel> References: <87fuyozzax.fsf@eliezer.anholt.net> <87d1tfrdu0.fsf@eliezer.anholt.net> <568C2619.20705@wwwdotorg.org> <3082544.lZk2r7IkWv@wuerfel> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.1 (GTK+ 2.24.29; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Eric, On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 22:26:33 +0100 Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Tuesday 05 January 2016 13:22:49 Stephen Warren wrote: > > >>> > > >>> branches: > > >>> drm-vc4-next > > >>> bcm2835-dt-next > > >>> bcm2835-soc-next > > >>> bcm2835-drivers-next > > >>> bcm2385-defconfig-next > > >>> (bcm2835-maintainers-next is a placeholder since we have nothing for it > > >>> this round) > > > > Typically maintainers merge everything together into a single "for-next" > > to maintain a reasonable set of branches. I guess it doesn't affect me > > so my opinion isn't too relevant though:-) > > In my experience the common for-next branch works best because > you can change the set of branches that get merged into it as > needed. If there are 6 branches today, it's quite likely that there > will be another one in the future and if only one branch gets > merged into for-next, you don't need to worry about updating the list. Certainly, that would be easier for me. Though you may want to keep the drm-vc4-next branch separate since that get merged via a different tree (and can appear at a different point in my merge list). It does mean an extra step for you i.e. you would need to merge all the relevant branches into the single "for-next" branch, but that should not be too big an imposition. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au