[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] ARM Subarchitecture group maintainership
On Thursday 26 May 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
> 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.

I think all the subarch maintainers should basically stop having their
stuff included directly in linux-next, but instead have it pulled into
our tree, which has one aggregate -next branch that gets included there.


 \ /
  Last update: 2011-05-26 12:17    [W:0.048 / U:7.524 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site