[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2749830124ec9d6990c95bf2ce4ea4de56b2967a.camel@physik.fu-berlin.de>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2023 08:51:23 +0100
From: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7 v4] sh: remove sh5/sh64 last fragments
Hi Geert!
On Fri, 2023-03-17 at 08:31 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
>
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 9:46 PM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2023-03-16 at 13:43 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > > Oops, sorry. My bad. I will use the proper tree.
> > >
> > > Just let me know if you want me to resend it.
> > > Thanks.
> >
> > No, that's fine. I will rebase my for-next tree.
>
> Rebase on top of what? Commit 49deed336ef9a409 ("parisc:
> update kbuild doc. aliases for parisc64") is in the parisc tree.
> You must not base the SH tree on the parisc tree.
Oh, I wasn't aware of that.
> Don't care about the simple conflict, Stephen and Linus can
> handle that fine.
>
> FTR, if the conflict was more complex, an immutable branch to be
> merged by all parties would be appropriate. But that's overkill and
> thus not needed for simple conflicts like this.
I'll resolve the conflict manually then. Thanks.
Adrian
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer
`. `' Physicist
`- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Powered by blists - more mailing lists