From: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
To: Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>,
Wolfram Sang <w.sang@pengutronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the i2c tree with the arm-current tree
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 09:25:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090506092559.2d9e53cb@hyperion.delvare> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090506071547.GA29466@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
Hi Russell,
On Wed, 6 May 2009 08:15:48 +0100, Russell King wrote:
> Since defconfig updates are always going to create lots of noise, and
> the files are normally out of date, the *only* sensible way to handle
> updates is to have one tree dealing with them per architecture.
>
> Spreading them across multiple trees and then expecting merges to sort
> out the resulting mess is unreasonable; they just change far too much
> when updates happen. Moreover, defconfig updates should be in their
> own separate commit and not combined with other changes.
I fail to see how you can handle configuration option renames
gracefully with your proposed model.
--
Jean Delvare
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
To: Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>,
Wolfram Sang <w.sang@pengutronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the i2c tree with the arm-current tree
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 09:25:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090506092559.2d9e53cb@hyperion.delvare> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090506071547.GA29466@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
Hi Russell,
On Wed, 6 May 2009 08:15:48 +0100, Russell King wrote:
> Since defconfig updates are always going to create lots of noise, and
> the files are normally out of date, the *only* sensible way to handle
> updates is to have one tree dealing with them per architecture.
>
> Spreading them across multiple trees and then expecting merges to sort
> out the resulting mess is unreasonable; they just change far too much
> when updates happen. Moreover, defconfig updates should be in their
> own separate commit and not combined with other changes.
I fail to see how you can handle configuration option renames
gracefully with your proposed model.
--
Jean Delvare
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-06 7:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-06 3:10 linux-next: manual merge of the i2c tree with the arm-current tree Stephen Rothwell
2009-05-06 7:15 ` Russell King
2009-05-06 7:25 ` Jean Delvare [this message]
2009-05-06 7:25 ` Jean Delvare
2009-05-06 19:01 ` Russell King
2009-05-07 6:54 ` Jean Delvare
2009-05-07 6:54 ` Jean Delvare
2009-05-06 8:31 ` Jean Delvare
2009-05-06 19:04 ` Russell King
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090506092559.2d9e53cb@hyperion.delvare \
--to=khali@linux-fr.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nico@cam.org \
--cc=rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
--cc=w.sang@pengutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.