lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Mar]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: linux-next: manual merge of the workqueues tree with Linus' tree
Hi Tejun,

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 15:13:08 -0700 Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 09:05:40AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Anyways, I pulled master into wq/for-next and resolved it there, so it
> > > shouldn't cause you any more trouble.
> >
> > Ah, OK, thanks. One small point, when you do a back merge like that,
> > you should always put an explanation in the commit message for the merge.
>
> Oh, I do that for any permanent branches. for-next branches are
> ephemeral (at least in my trees) so I usually don't bother. I do
> compare against for-next when and after sending pull requests with
> proper conflict descriptions, so things are not likely to slip through
> there. Hmmm.... if it's gonna be helpful to you, I'd be happy to
> describe merge conflicts and resolutions in for-next merges. Would
> that be helpful?

No, that's OK. I do wonder some times why some people have "ephemeral"
-next branches, though? I guess, in your case, that you send your stuff
to Linus in more than one pull request and have just combined them to
reduce the conflicts for my benefit? Which is fine.

--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-03-19 23:41    [W:0.867 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site