On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:07:14 +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 03:57:54PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:01:46PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <[email protected]> > > > Acked-by: Jean Delvare <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > MAINTAINERS | 1 + > > > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > > > index 2533fc4..a3c936c 100644 > > > --- a/MAINTAINERS > > > +++ b/MAINTAINERS > > > @@ -2626,6 +2626,7 @@ M: "Ben Dooks (embedded platforms)" > > > <[email protected]> > > > L: [email protected] > > > W: http://i2c.wiki.kernel.org/ > > > T: quilt > > > kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/jdelvare/linux-2.6/jdelvare-i2c/ > > > +T: git git://git.fluff.org/bjdooks/linux.git > > > > This is wrong. This is the same tree which I pull ARM stuff from, so it > > needs qualifying with a branch name. > $(git ls-remote git://git.fluff.org/bjdooks/linux.git) suggests two > candidates: > > for-linus/i2c > next-i2c > > And I think for now this is only parsed by humans and everbody should be > able to notice that e.g. "next-s3c" doesn't contain i2c patches in the > presence of the two above branches. > > So unless there is a syntax to specify more than one branch I suggest to > keep it as is. Or should we only list next-i2c? Ben, what do you > think?
I presume that for-linus/i2c is a temporary subset of next-i2c for Linus' consumption. So we can ignore for-linus/i2c and only list next-i2c. > (Maybe we can just make it: > > T: git git://git.fluff.org/bjdooks/linux.git for-linus/i2c > T: git git://git.fluff.org/bjdooks/linux.git next-i2c > > but this is a bit too much IMHO. (Who volunteers to list all branches > of tip in MAINTAINERS? ;-)) > > Best regards > Uwe > -- Jean Delvare -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
