[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1259162583.4683.46.camel@dhcp231-106.rdu.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:23:03 -0500
From: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steve French <sfrench@...ibm.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ext3 tree with the cifs tree
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 20:04 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> I have just noticed that I get the same conflict between the cifs tree
> and the fsnotify tree (hi Eric!) which has also included that patch from
> Christoph. Again, not a big problem.
I was doing my development against linux-next. After I posted them and
decided to commit them to my -next tree I realized they didn't commit
due to hch's patch. So I cherry picked hch's patch and decided I
wouldn't ask linus to pull until after the hch patch went in (I did it
for some things in the net-next tree as well as I recall)
What's the best way? To handle this? do you prefer to just carry the
conflict fix? should we cherry pick things and fix it ourselves? I
guess my method breaks down if the tree in question doesn't eventually
go to linus like it should.....
-Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists