Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:45:46 +0100 | From | Mark Brown <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: Tree for Oct 24 |
| |
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 06:33:43AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 6:24 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> > The rule I was applying (which I think is the same as Stephen applies) > > is that I'd fix anything that was definitely the result of a merge issue > > (like the build failure in misc due to a sysfs API change in the sysfs > > tree) but not anything that was just plain broken in the tree in > > isolation.
> Some of those might still make sense, but as many as possible of them > should be pushed down into the trees where they belong, even if > they're strictly not needed there (as long as they don't break the > standalone tree, of course).
Right, this is strictly for issues generated as a result of a change in one tree that cause an issue when merged with another tree like adding a user of an API in one tree that has had an incompatible change in another. [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |