From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757277AbcLBADZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Dec 2016 19:03:25 -0500 Received: from ec2-52-27-115-49.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com ([52.27.115.49]:60428 "EHLO osg.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755585AbcLBADX (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Dec 2016 19:03:23 -0500 Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 21:55:28 -0200 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Jonathan Corbet , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the v4l-dvb tree with the jc_docs tree Message-ID: <20161201215528.5027943c@vento.lan> In-Reply-To: <20161202103107.01452535@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20161202103107.01452535@canb.auug.org.au> Organization: Samsung X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.0 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Em Fri, 2 Dec 2016 10:31:07 +1100 Stephen Rothwell escreveu: > Hi Mauro, > > Today's linux-next merge of the v4l-dvb tree got conflicts in: > > Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/dev-subdev_files/subdev-image-processing-crop.svg > Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/dev-subdev_files/subdev-image-processing-full.svg > Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/dev-subdev_files/subdev-image-processing-scaling-multi-source.svg > > between commit: > > 15a04d4e76bd ("docs-rst: auto-generate PDF image files") > > from the jc_docs tree and commit: > > 9e3d073009d2 ("[media] docs-rst: cleanup SVG files") > > from the v4l-dvb tree. > > I fixed it up (I have no idea, so I just deleted the files as the former > did. Or were they moved?) and can carry the fix as necessary. Those files were moved at the docs-next tree. I did some further cleanups on them, in order to reduce their size. > This > is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial > conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree > is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating > with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly > complex conflicts. I'll pull from Jon's tree and solve such conflicts. Thanks for pointing it! -- Thanks, Mauro