Changes in the SH and Genesis/R-Mobile git trees

The current scheme with the split out trees simply wasn't scaling well, with too many interdependencies and confusion about where to do what. As such, and after talking to Linus about what he was the most comfortable with, I've come up with a scheme loosely modelled after -tip.

The first change to note is the naming one. While genesis worked fine for the SH-Mobile G series, it's no longer terribly helpful now that the ARM/SH multi-cores have moved beyond the G series, and newer parts will be using R-Mobile naming. Having said that, we will not be moving off of the SH-Mobile naming in the kernel proper simply because there is no architectural difference. Separate R-Mobile symbols may be introduced in the future if they diverge from the current ARM-based SH-Mobile parts sufficiently.

rmobile/
sh/
- Are the new (or existing in the sh case) namespaces for all of the targetted topic branches. Topic branches will be created and destroyed as necessary over time, with most having no logical connection to any other branches. Some of these may be branched off of or pulled in to other trees as the need arises.

rmobile-fixes-for-linus / sh-fixes-for-linus
- These are my pull branches for upstream. They will always contain that which is bound for the next -rc, regardless of whether we are in a merge window or late in an -rc series. They will only be advanced as new things come in that need to be merged in to the next -rc, and may very well stay put for awhile if I've just completed a merge and all of the new patches are aimed at the next kernel.

rmobile-latest / sh-latest
- These contain the newest changes and are each an integration of their respective namespaces. These are what get pulled (or what I would like to have pulled) in to -next, and so will only be advanced with next merge window patches once we're in an -rc2 phase, as per standard -next guidelines. These are basically identical to the old master branch behaviour for the previous genesis and sh trees.

While these are suitable for doing testing and development against, folks are encouraged to focus on specific and isolated topic branches for the highest degree of flexibility going forward (if you find yourself in need of changes from one or more branches in order to build a logical set on another, just make a note of it when posting the patch series).

master
- This will now be an integration branch of the latest sh, rmobile, and whatever other architectures we end up with changes. This will not be rebased or pulled by any upstream, but people are advised to use the topic branches that relate to their areas of interest and need. This will provide the best idea of what the next kernel will look like once all of the changes from the other branches have been merged.

I also plan to gradually introduce a separate namespace for development of shared blocks, split between rmobile/sh/common components, which will in turn be merged back in to whichever localized topic or integration branches need them. This will become readily apparent once new branches start appearing and people become gradually more aware of the branch topology and interaction.

Hi Paul,

Should I include these branches among my other "current" trees? These trees contain fixes for Linus' current -rc series and are merged very early in linux-next. They are in linux-next so that bugs already fixed are not reported again against linux-next before Linus has merged the fixes.

I will replace the sh and genesis trees in linux-next with the above two branches starting with next-20101110 (and rename genesis to rmobile).

Thanks for adding your subsystem tree as a participant of linux-next. As you may know, this is not a judgment of your code. The purpose of linux-next is for integration testing and to lower the impact of conflicts between subsystems in the next merge window.

You will need to ensure that the patches/commits in your tree/series have been:
* submitted under GPL v2 (or later) and include the Contributor's Signed-off-by,
* posted to the relevant mailing list,
* reviewed by you (or another maintainer of your subsystem tree),
* successfully unit tested, and
* destined for the current or next Linux merge window.

Basically, this should be just what you would send to Linus (or ask him to fetch). It is allowed to be rebased if you deem it necessary.

Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell 
[email protected]

Legal Stuff:
By participating in linux-next, your subsystem tree contributions are
public and will be included in the linux-next trees.  You may be sent
e-mail messages indicating errors or other issues when the
patches/commits from your subsystem tree are merged and tested in
linux-next.  These messages may also be cross-posted to the linux-next
mailing list, the linux-kernel mailing list, etc.  The linux-next tree
project and IBM (my employer) make no warranties regarding the linux-next
project, the testing procedures, the results, the e-mails, etc.  If you
don't agree to these ground rules, let me know and I'll remove your tree
from participation in linux-next.

Oh, I hadn't even noticed those. Yes, it seems like these would be a good fit for that. I haven't had a strict rule on rebasing for these in the past simply because there was no immediate downstream, but I can probably avoid that.

Great, thanks.