From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934057Ab3CSWUP (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Mar 2013 18:20:15 -0400 Received: from haggis.pcug.org.au ([203.10.76.10]:47244 "EHLO members.tip.net.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757354Ab3CSWUM (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Mar 2013 18:20:12 -0400 Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:20:03 +1100 From: Stephen Rothwell To: Tejun Heo 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: <20130320092003.34eef26c91419b4a2f0f3d32@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: <20130319221308.GS3042@htj.dyndns.org> References: <20130319131938.73dd0f1233c8aba41742aded@canb.auug.org.au> <20130319211233.GN3042@htj.dyndns.org> <20130320090540.81c687d28ffe3a6abe905816@canb.auug.org.au> <20130319221308.GS3042@htj.dyndns.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.3.0 (GTK+ 2.24.10; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="PGP-SHA256"; boundary="Signature=_Wed__20_Mar_2013_09_20_03_+1100_0NZw8Ht_oilgrMrI" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --Signature=_Wed__20_Mar_2013_09_20_03_+1100_0NZw8Ht_oilgrMrI Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Tejun, On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 15:13:08 -0700 Tejun Heo 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. > >=20 > > 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 merg= e. >=20 > 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. --=20 Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au --Signature=_Wed__20_Mar_2013_09_20_03_+1100_0NZw8Ht_oilgrMrI Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJRSOSTAAoJEECxmPOUX5FEKpcQAI6khR0RZSQIfBitEJnZiHE9 qaUKChYSKkpi+q0qfmP8mAe4nmz3K+ugIWas8U8SmWMFSXLhR7h20R2zoqPtyGYd gByc3Z9b8ki5BUgClM6hlQqygoG4mHavrD7J+sULRxY705tvYvO+PAnXWV8T+jvC mhZXM8rTZqDbvbInn0xZqfACIlgH8vIlJaKQQtKGAhjOydgeaMPslaG+7/CVKspx Iih3RdojqLJeHGB7QMgGkgsupMSTB+3kIUp7nC4fxSO92OplbRlIbTn8lvpNae0s dUOyAuUhTX3T4IDam0adfK41PuwGJRDKrWEq2BLExx9H2al62fWBn3aKCftjb5SO VpYhytpPCsNAO1aLB4RxW+OCVH0wcw7F3GBf0HtnCcHQNPnKQ5teRToD0MXEyWSd 4cPuJvU47Jl9GDY1XgxIVDWUAGdNX7rgIiyNBISELiGgHn2vNcg0SLX3t3UDaxXE 2t/jTf82W0CqPlEhDPwReg0omL9Ex0uC9CZ2g9nzNG0zbjYe0KlmbOQiUfkRy2Pq 68ctHOIXcXS/Dh+ar6F4jQIPwh3vWtFYVzUpzRhDAl9z1YNOmGfw36nGc3z66eZn DL8/x3oAWr1t731pCRBzrkKNKMWwqHDArQazPWmaL6f7+8TqpSuuFCwtOZ0kfvhG 8l7NKwjvnHJGdYeHoF9G =EQk2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Wed__20_Mar_2013_09_20_03_+1100_0NZw8Ht_oilgrMrI--