Re: [PATCH 3/4] rebase: test ack

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 09:54:47AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 08:13:27AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> writes:
> >> 
> >> > Just to clarify I can post v2 of 4/4 without reposting 1-3 since they
> >> > are queued?
> >> 
> >> If you need to update anything queued only on 'pu' but not yet in
> >> 'next', it is customary to resend the whole for everybody to see
> >> (what is already in 'next' should only be built upon incrementally
> >> and not updated with replacement patches), while noting which ones
> >> are the same as before.  Christian Couder has been doing it nicely
> >> in his recent rerolls (if the series were not in 'next', that is).
> >> 
> >> Thanks.
> >
> > Actually I don't see anything like it in pu.
> 
> The way I usually work is to apply a non-fix (i.e. enhancement)
> series on a topic branch forked from 'master' (or the last tagged
> version contained in its tip) and see if it makes sense, and then
> try-merge the result to 'next' to see if it is free of potential
> funny interactions with other topics that are already in flight.
> After that happens, the topic branch is merged to somewhere in 'pu'.
> 
> It is possible that I did not have time to go through all the steps
> above (after all, I had to make another -rc release and there was an
> unexpected last-minute change of plans in the morning that blew a
> few hours of work).  Or there may have been some merge conflicts
> that I didn't feel like resolving for various reasons (e.g. if I
> knew the series would be rerolled anyway, it can wait; if the other
> topic that interacts with your series has been cooking sufficiently
> long in 'next' and if it is very close to the final release of this
> cycle, it may be easier to wait for the other topic to graduate to
> 'master', which would happen soon after this cycle finishes, and ask
> you to rebase your series).
> 
> I don't remember which ;-)
> 

Oh sorry, didn't mean to try to pressure you. I was just surprised
not to see it there. I know this applies cleanly to next so I'll just
wait for 2.0 to be out.

-- 
MST