On 05/05/2014 11:59 AM, Fabio Estevam wrote: > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Stephen Warren <[email protected]> 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. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
