lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: linux-next: current pending merge fix patches

* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi Ingo,
>
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 09:10:21 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> >
> > > This could also be taken as a reminder to the respective maintiners that
> > > they may want to do a merge of your tree before asking you to pull theirs.
> >
> > I dont think that's generally correct for trivial conflicts: it's better if
> > Linus does the merge of a tree that is based in some stable tree.
>
> In general I agree. I have singled out these conflict resolutions because
> they involve either files not obvious from the conflicts (newly introduced
> or chunks of code moved between files), or chunks of code that are
> introduced in one tree but need to be modified after the otheris merged. So
> in that sense they are a heads up to Linus because they are only found after
> you do the merge and then get a build failure (if you do the right builds).
>
> So they can be resolved by Linus after he merges the second tree or by the
> original maintainer of one of the trees merging/cherrypicking (part of) the
> other tree or waiting for Linus to merge the other tree and then do a merge
> with Linus' tree.

Conflict reminders are certainly useful - even for trivial commits.

My comments mostly related to the part of your suggestion that subsystem
maintainers may merge in Linus's tree before they send their pull request to
Linus - which i dont agree with in the general case, for the aforementioned
reasons.

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-03-01 10:05    [W:0.043 / U:8.572 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site