Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:53:12 +0200 | From | "Vegard Nossum" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86: more header fixes |
| |
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > thanks Vegard, these changes are looking rather good. I've created a > tip/x86/header-guards topic for it and did a test-merge. There were 30+ > trivial conflicts with tip/master that were easy to fix - find the list > of conflicting files below. > > Lets keep these changes out of tip/master for now though, to reduce the > churn - i'll do a merge/rebase in the v2.6.27-rc1 timeframe, ok? > > or perhaps we could include it in tip/master right now as well, if you > did another branch that excluded the files below. That would make > merging a lot easier - and we could do a second phase in v2.6.27-rc1. > Hm?
I don't think we really need to resolve conflicts at all. What we can do is simply to re-run the scripts against tip/master whenever you want the update.
I have created a 'for-tip' branch at git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/vegard/linux-2.6-headers.git which is a re-run against the most recent tip/master. (The previous link was against something rather old like -rc6.)
I am not sure this is what you wanted. In either case, re-running is not a problem, and neither is excluding a set of files. Please do this with as little pain for yourself as possible. The purpose of the script is to avoid manual work.
Also, by the way: Can -tip now be cloned with --shared to save space as long as I only have branches with references to commits in tip/master? Or is this still to be considered unsafe?
Vegard
-- "The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation." -- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036
| |