[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <054dc72a-39ce-ee8c-62d1-c17f487009de@gmx.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 18:43:32 +0200
From: Kamil Rytarowski <n54@....com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the jc_docs tree with the kbuild tree
Hello,
Am I expected to do it myself and resend a new patch?
On 03.07.2017 04:58, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> With the merge window opening, just a reminder that this conflict still
> exists.
>
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 11:13:31 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the jc_docs tree got a conflict in:
>>
>> scripts/kernel-doc-xml-ref
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>> cb77f0d623ff ("scripts: Switch to more portable Perl shebang")
>>
>> from the kbuild tree and commit:
>>
>> 52b3f239bb69 ("Docs: clean up some DocBook loose ends")
>>
>> from the jc_docs tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (the latter removed the file, so I did that) and can
>> carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is
>> concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your
>> upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging. You may
>> also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting
>> tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts.
>
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists