On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 12:15:50PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 05/05/2014 11:59 AM, Fabio Estevam wrote:
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Stephen Warren swarren@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
Albert,
I was wondering when the next pull request for u-boot-arm/master -> u-boot/master was likely to be?
I asked because some changes to the Tegra USB driver went through the u-boot-tegra/master and hence are now in u-boot-arm/master, but not in u-boot-usb/master. I have some more USB driver changes which rely on the earlier USB patches, and these should really go through u-boot-usb/master rather than the Tegra/ARM tree. For this to happen, u-boot-usb/master needs to contain the patches currently in u-boot-arm/master, and the best way for that to happen is for those patches to get into u-boot/master so that u-boot-usb/master can merge them.
Or, should Marek just merge u-boot-arm/master into his tree directly?
Or should we have a 'u-boot-next' tree using the same concept as the kernel 'linux-next'?
Having a u-boot-next won't solve this particular problem in any way.
Having a u-boot-next allows any end-developer to develop on top of the combined code in all trees, thus detecting/avoiding any conflicts with them.
However, my issue above is that a patch that's already applied in tree A needs to make its way into tree B, so that further patches can be *applied* in tree B. This is all about applying patches, not developing patches. The existence (or not) of a u-boot-next tree doesn't affect this issue at all.
This is in fact a usual problem in Linux land where it seems like we have much more stringent rules on how things can go in. So long as people can collect the needed acks, I'm fine pulling things that touch a few areas into master.