From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Delvare Subject: Re: linux-next: i2c tree build failure Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:15:46 +0200 Message-ID: <20090831141546.6c52c7fb@hyperion.delvare> References: <20090831111935.5059565b.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20090831120449.3f64aa74@hyperion.delvare> <20090831210335.f382d7ff.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20090831131647.3f609ad4@hyperion.delvare> <20090831215905.caadce2f.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090831215905.caadce2f.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Greg KH List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 21:59:05 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:16:47 +0200 Jean Delvare wrote: > > I am also surprised that I would have to tell you. What is the purpose > > of the NEXT_BASE tag if you do not check for dependencies automatically? > > I use the tag to choose the base when I import the quilt series into git. > So far I have not needed to automate the ordering of the imports. > > > Anyway, if you say git can deal with duplicate patches OK, then I think > > I'll simply re-add the patch on my end. But I do not have a strong > > opinion on this either, so if you prefer clean dependencies and > > ordering without duplicate patches, it is just as easy for me to leave > > the redundant patch out and restore the NEXT_BASE tag. > > I prefer less dependencies (so you could put the patch back in), however, > that means if Greg changes the patch, then we will have two slightly > different versions to merge. I can cope with that as well. I've made sure my patch has the same name as Greg's, to make it easier for you to spot duplicates. > Just readd the patch :-) OK, done. Hopefully the next merge window is coming soon now anyway, and then the trouble with this specific patch will be solved. -- Jean Delvare