lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Feb]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: linux-next: manual merge of the msm tree with the arm tree
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011, Daniel Walker wrote:

> On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 16:47 -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > The actual problem here is that some people, notably the msm folks,
> > are
> > bypassing the maintainer hierarchy and going straight to Linus for
> > their
> > pull requests instead of asking RMK to pull. We once debated this at
>
> I don't think it's fair to single out MSM here. Going straight to Linus
> was discussed at one point, as I recall, and Russell didn't oppose it at
> the time. There are a number of ARM sub-architecture maintainers that do
> this..

The point still stands for msm as well as for the others. And this is
now causing fuss amongst second guessers as this thread is showing.
But this aside, this is still putting more load on Linus while this load
could be more distributed.

> None of that is related to the rejects created here, those would
> happen no matter who we submitted pull requests to.

Indeed. And trivial is the fix, which is what I've said too.

> I think the issue is more that MSM is actively being cleanup , and
> Russell is touching code that we're working on also. So we need a way to
> work together .. In this case the collision is so simple that either
> Linus or Russell would just fix it up while pulling, and both would
> likely be fine with that.

Exact.

Maybe this would be nicer to Russell and others performing wide ranging
changes to the ARM code if the msm tree was more visible downstream, and
potentially help to avoid making a mountain out of a mole hill.

> In the past I've tried to fix up these issues,
> but now I think maybe it's doesn't matter.

I'm sure Stephen knows about git's rerere facility, or he might have
developed one of his own by now, hence his proposal to carry simple
conflict resolution for as long as required. So yes, I don't think this
is something that must be "fixed" if carrying the fix in the downstream
tree causes more trouble than the trivial merge involved.

> In terms of Russell rebasing, I don't really like that. I've based MSM
> trees on Russell's stable branch and it's worked in the past. If
> Russell's rebasing then we can't really do that, so one tool to fix
> these problems is gone.

Russell has so named his "stable" branch for a reason. I'll let you
guess what it is. :-)


Nicolas


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-02-04 20:43    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans