Re: [RFC] ARM Subarchitecture group maintainership

[Arnd Bergmann]

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.

	Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/