[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1379508476.8819.40.camel@dhcp-9-2-203-236.watson.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 08:47:56 -0400
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, simo@...hat.com,
keyrings@...ux-nfs.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Keyrings patches
On Wed, 2013-09-18 at 12:53 +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> > Is there some reason that those fixups cannot be done in a merge commit?
> > i.e. are they more than simple text updates?
Hi Stephen, the issue is that the patches were created against a newer
kernel (eg. next, akpm, Linus' branch), not the earlier one. So it
isn't a merge issue per se. Now that -rc1 is out, James will rebase
soon.
Mimi
> That's somewhat up to James. *He* would be the person doing the merge, not
> me. I'm changing the lines in my patches also.
>
> > /me thinks that most rebases people do can be better done (and
> > documented) as merges.
>
> That depends on how you define "better". Better for what? I think it's
> better to absorb the changes into my patch series. StGIT is very good for
> handling this, since my patches are currently maintained as an StGIT set.
> That way, there ends up one fewer commit in the history, assuming no other
> collisions with what James merges.
>
> David
--
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