From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934406Ab3CSWNO (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Mar 2013 18:13:14 -0400 Received: from mail-pd0-f173.google.com ([209.85.192.173]:50997 "EHLO mail-pd0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754682Ab3CSWNN (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Mar 2013 18:13:13 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 15:13:08 -0700 From: Tejun Heo To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the workqueues tree with Linus' tree Message-ID: <20130319221308.GS3042@htj.dyndns.org> References: <20130319131938.73dd0f1233c8aba41742aded@canb.auug.org.au> <20130319211233.GN3042@htj.dyndns.org> <20130320090540.81c687d28ffe3a6abe905816@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130320090540.81c687d28ffe3a6abe905816@canb.auug.org.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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? Thanks. -- tejun