[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <57600036.8040900@suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:01:42 +0200
From: Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>
Cc: Linux-Next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: duplicate patches in the kspp and kbuild trees
On 2016-06-14 06:32, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Kees,
>
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 16:57:15 -0700 Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Strange, I pulled these directly from linux-next. Michal had an
>>> auto-responder saying he was going to be out-of-office, so I wanted to
>>> make sure the !COMPILE_TEST fix got in.
>>>
>>> Sounds like I should merge the kbuild tree, rather than cherry-picking
>>> from linux-next? I will adjust.
>
> Cherry-picking produces new commits (with new SHA1s etc), while merging
> (or rebasing on top of the other versions) will have the same commits
> (not just patches).
>
> Having the same commits means that they never produce conflicts after
> further changes to the same files (unless both sides of the merge make
> further changes to the same files).
>
>> I've done this merge correctly now and pushed a forced update on the kspp tree.
>
> Thanks for that. Now you just have to hope that Michal never rebases
> that part of his tree from under you. (Michal: hint! :-))
I won't :). Kees, are you going to keep the patch in your tree and send
it to Linus once kbuild is in? Or shall I take it (which would
temporarily result in another duplication...).
Thanks,
Michal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists