[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
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


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

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-02-04 19:13    [W:0.093 / U:2.108 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site