Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1592144 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v9 00/10] mux controller abstraction and iio/i2c muxes

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v9 00/10] mux controller abstraction and iio/i2c muxes Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> - 2017-03-03 18:10 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v9 00/10] mux controller abstraction and iio/i2c muxes Jonathan Cameron <jic23@jic23.retrosnub.co.uk> - 2017-03-03 18:50 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v9 00/10] mux controller abstraction and iio/i2c muxes Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> - 2017-03-03 20:40 +0100

#1592144 — Re: [PATCH v9 00/10] mux controller abstraction and iio/i2c muxes

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

> Jonathan, Wolfram, do you have any preferences on how this should be
> coordinated regarding the new iio and i2c drivers (and iio changes)?

You got the acks, all is fine, I think.

> My plan is to at some point declare the branch immutable. Then both of
> you can pull it in. Or? 

Yup, sounds good.

> But now that I think about it I wonder what the point is of having
> Greg pull it in also? Sure, third time's a charm and all that, but...

AFAIU, Greg will be your "upstream", so he should definately pull the
branch. I will just pull it in to avoid merge conflicts in my tree.
Or did I misunderstand your question?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1592169

On 3 March 2017 16:52:47 GMT+00:00, Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> wrote:
>
>> Jonathan, Wolfram, do you have any preferences on how this should be
>> coordinated regarding the new iio and i2c drivers (and iio changes)?
>
>You got the acks, all is fine, I think.
>
>> My plan is to at some point declare the branch immutable. Then both
>of
>> you can pull it in. Or? 
>
>Yup, sounds good.
>
>> But now that I think about it I wonder what the point is of having
>> Greg pull it in also? Sure, third time's a charm and all that, but...
>
>AFAIU, Greg will be your "upstream", so he should definately pull the
>branch. I will just pull it in to avoid merge conflicts in my tree.
>Or did I misunderstand your question?
Agreed, will do the same if needed. Btw Greg is a very nice upstream to have!

Jonathan

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1592246

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

> And conflicts -- if they show up -- will probably be trivial given the
> nature of the series. Famous last words...

Heh. I agree, though :)

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web