[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20130320092003.34eef26c91419b4a2f0f3d32@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:20:03 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
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
Hi Tejun,
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 15:13:08 -0700 Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> 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.
> >
> > 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?
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.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@...b.auug.org.au
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists