Re: [PATCH V1 2/3] MFD: da9052: Add new DA9053 BC chip variant

[Mark Brown]

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:50:36AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:

> I am. The trouble with basing your patches against -next is that it's
> not stable, in that it is rebuilt every day. If your patches are
> dependant on commits which haven't reached Mainline yet, then you
> should rebase on the subsystem tree which they are contained in. All
> patches in -next should be based on an -rc or a released kernel version.

The advice here is usually that sending against -next is a good proxy
for sending against the individual tree without having to figure out all
the different trees - almost all of the time the effect is the same.
This only applies when sending patches via e-mail, for git pulls it's an
absolute no of course.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature