Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 26 May 2011 10:33:55 +0200 (CEST) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] ARM Subarchitecture group maintainership |
| |
On Thu, 26 May 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 06:06:16PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Wed, 25 May 2011, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > > What do you want to do with with the various for-next branches? > > > > Do you want to queue things into your tree before hitting for-next? > > > The stuff which gets pulled in from the various suppliers is > > aggregated in a separate for -next branch. > > 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.
Thanks,
tglx
| |