Re: linux-next: manual merge of the workqueues tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1231 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]