lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Feb]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: linux-next: manual merge of the msm tree with the arm tree
    From
    Date
    On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 17:42 +0000, Russell King wrote:
    > So you tell me - do I take the p2v stuff out of public view tonight
    > because it's not stable, and therefore you don't even know about the
    > conflict?
    >
    > Or do I continue publishing the unstable changes so that people have
    > the ability to see what's going on in my tree and find potential
    > conflicts?
    >
    > I really don't care which - but I'll warn you that keeping changes
    > hidden will result in a reduction of patch quality, and much much
    > much less testing of those changes. And I won't care at all when you
    > complain that MSM's broken because of one of my patches.
    >
    > Exactly what would you prefer?

    I'm not really opposed to any of your objectives. What it sounds like is
    that you have a "stable" branch, and an "unstable" branch. Both branches
    are in linux-next , and we're seeing conflicts from the unstable one. Is
    that accurate?

    I think we can deal with the issues as long as you have one branch that
    you don't rebase, and things eventually move into that branch. So if we
    have a conflict then we can base our tree on your stable branch , and
    have confidence that your not rebasing it, or merge that into our tree.

    I think the problem is that when you say your rebase it's not clear if
    your rebasing all your branches, or if you only rebasing one unstable
    branch..

    Daniel

    --
    Sent by an consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
    The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora
    Forum.




    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-02-04 19:13    [W:0.023 / U:2.308 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site