Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:20:03 +1100 | From | Stephen Rothwell <> | Subject | Re: 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] | |