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

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130319221308.GS3042@htj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Tue, 19 Mar 2013 15:13:08 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the workqueues tree with Linus' tree

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?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/