On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:07:14 +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 03:57:54PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:01:46PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:

quoted

Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-K?nig <redacted>
Acked-by: Jean Delvare <redacted>
---
 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)" <ben-linux@fluff.org>
 L:	linux-i2c at vger.kernel.org
 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