On 17 April 2012 09:59, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: > Am 16.04.2012 23:24, schrieb Peter Maydell: >> I wouldn't expect people to base arm patches against >> arm-devs.next rather than master, for instance. (Maybe I should??) > > I'm kind of expecting you to, during the Hard Freeze and in case of > acceptable patches not for 1.1 during the Soft Freeze.
Mm. Depends how much not-for-1.1 stuff arrives during soft/hardfreeze. > Which is also my problems towards T:, most maintainers don't have trees > dedicated to the subsystem but their personal tree with multiple > branches. For example, the branch you'd whitelist for pulling ppc from > is ppc-for-upstream, whereas contributors should base patches on either > ppc-next or (guessing) ppc-1.1. In Peter's case there's separate > branches for arm-devs and targer-arm. I use .next vs .for-upstream as well. > Officially the branch name is not part of the documented syntax but IMO > it's useful for users reading MAINTAINERS. > Whereas Anthony seems to be suggesting using MAINTAINERS as a tool for > committers, of which currently only two actively handle PULLs. I don't particularly mind which we do, but I do think that we should be clear about what the semantics are and how we expect people to use this information. -- PMM
