[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20130906133101.14da90edd4f8c32cf29ce146@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 13:31:01 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: back merge of Linus' tree into the vfio tree
Hi Alex,
On Thu, 05 Sep 2013 17:14:29 -0600 Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2013-09-06 at 09:08 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > I noticed that you have back merged Linus' tree into yours. Linus
> > usually takes a dim view of that - especially when there is no
> > explanation in the merge commit message. i.e. you shouldn't to that
> > unless you really need to - and then you should explain why you did it.
>
> Hmm, I was hoping that wouldn't be a problem, especially with no
> conflicts in the merge. I did it because the first commit after the
> merge in my next tree depends on PCI changes that have already been
> merged by Linus. Re-basing is an even bigger sin and I felt it better
> to do a merge than ask for two pulls or add an unbuild-able commit to my
> next tree. How do you suggest that I resolve this?
See above ... you should have said all that in the merge commit message.
I guess that you should just own it now and explain it to Linus when you
ask him to pull your tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@...b.auug.org.au
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists