[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5010126D.9030205@keymile.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:36:13 +0200
From: Gerlando Falauto <gerlando.falauto@...mile.com>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
CC: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>,
"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the l2-mtd tree with the mtd tree
Hi David,
On 07/25/2012 05:26 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-07-25 at 17:21 +0200, Gerlando Falauto wrote:
>>
>> So could someone please spend a few words on what happened in the meantime?
>> To me it looks like the l2-mtd tree got rebased at some point, but I'm
>> quite at loss about this whole back-and-forth between trees.
>> I'm sure a few words could make my life much easier... :-)
>
> There's no need to worry. The l2-mtd tree is rebased on top of the mtd
> tree, and contains patches that Artem thinks I'm likely to accept.
>
> I apply them, sometimes with a few minor changes, or I occasionally
> reject them. Sometimes if Artem doesn't *immediately* update his tree
> after I push changes to mine, a 'conflict' appears between the two. You
> can ignore it.
>
thanks for your explanation.
So, is it correct to say that any patch contained within l2-mtd (but
*NOT* within linux-mtd) will eventually be killed? (Or rather,
*replaced* by the version eventually applied to linux-mtd)?
In other words, when you say "Artem updates his tree", it is technically
a rebase (so his version of a patch actually looks as if never existed),
right?
Thanks a lot!
Gerlando
--
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