Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 26 May 2011 10:59:19 +0100 | From | Mark Brown <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] ARM Subarchitecture group maintainership |
| |
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:33:55AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 26 May 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I think the question is about the existing -next branches people already > > have - should they contain code that hasn't yet gone to you guys? We're > > doing that for audio at the minute (having subtrees in -next directly) > > and it's pretty helpful for miniising hassle for the maintainers of the > > core tree.
> We obviously talk about arch/arm/[mach|plat]* stuff, drivers/ sound/ > etc. should go through the relevant maintainer trees.
Right, but the question is what to do with the subtrees that are in -next currently. I'm mentioning sound as an example of a tree with subtrees in -next directly.
| |