GIT tree plans

GIT tree plans

[David Miller]

After Linus takes in the bug fixes I just sent to him I am
going to rebase the sparc-next-2.6 tree.

I normally wouldn't do this but there is a generic Makefile
change from Sam that causes a bad bisection point for non-
sparc systems so it's a good idea to get rid of that.

I normally wouldn't respin the tree like this, but to cure this
I think it's worth it.

Re: GIT tree plans

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 11:23:00PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> 
> After Linus takes in the bug fixes I just sent to him I am
> going to rebase the sparc-next-2.6 tree.
> 
> I normally wouldn't do this but there is a generic Makefile
> change from Sam that causes a bad bisection point for non-
> sparc systems so it's a good idea to get rid of that.
And I am truly sorry for causing this.

I (of any people) should know how to do this right :-(

	Sam

Re: GIT tree plans

[Robert Reif]

David Miller wrote:
> After Linus takes in the bug fixes I just sent to him I am
> going to rebase the sparc-next-2.6 tree.
>   
The new tree boots fine on sparc32.

Re: GIT tree plans

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 11:23:00PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> 
> After Linus takes in the bug fixes I just sent to him I am
> going to rebase the sparc-next-2.6 tree.
> 
> I normally wouldn't do this but there is a generic Makefile
> change from Sam that causes a bad bisection point for non-
> sparc systems so it's a good idea to get rid of that.
> 
> I normally wouldn't respin the tree like this, but to cure this
> I think it's worth it.

I just test applied the reamining five patches and only the last
one had a trivial conflict.
Let me know if you want me to post a new set of patches.

I will follow-up whith the fixed patch 5/5 on this mail.

	Sam

Re: GIT tree plans

[David Miller]

From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 20:56:06 +0100

> On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 11:23:00PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > 
> > After Linus takes in the bug fixes I just sent to him I am
> > going to rebase the sparc-next-2.6 tree.
> > 
> > I normally wouldn't do this but there is a generic Makefile
> > change from Sam that causes a bad bisection point for non-
> > sparc systems so it's a good idea to get rid of that.
> > 
> > I normally wouldn't respin the tree like this, but to cure this
> > I think it's worth it.
> 
> I just test applied the reamining five patches and only the last
> one had a trivial conflict.
> Let me know if you want me to post a new set of patches.
> 
> I will follow-up whith the fixed patch 5/5 on this mail.

I have a local tree with all of your stuff applied on top
and it's tested even on sparc64 :-)

I want to do some slight rearranging before I publish that
work though, it will be up later today.

Re: GIT tree plans

[David Miller]

From: Robert Reif <reif@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 07:30:43 -0500

> David Miller wrote:
> > After Linus takes in the bug fixes I just sent to him I am
> > going to rebase the sparc-next-2.6 tree.
> >   
> The new tree boots fine on sparc32.

Thanks a lot for testing Robert.

Unfortunately I had to rebase the tree one more time, but I'm
pretty sure this is it for now :)

GIT tree plans...

[David Miller]

There are a bunch of conflicts to resolve in the net-next-2.6
tree because of things in Linus's tree.

So what I'm going to do is wait for Linus to take in the
net-2.6 pull request I just sent to him.  And afterwards
do all the necessary merges and conflict resolution to
get everything clean again.

Meanwhile I'll purge as much of the pending net-next-2.6
patch queue items as I can.

Just FYI...

Re: GIT tree plans...

[Marcel Holtmann]

Hi Dave,

> There are a bunch of conflicts to resolve in the net-next-2.6
> tree because of things in Linus's tree.
> 
> So what I'm going to do is wait for Linus to take in the
> net-2.6 pull request I just sent to him.  And afterwards
> do all the necessary merges and conflict resolution to
> get everything clean again.

I don't expect that any of my stuff will conflict since it is nicely
self-contained and I checked it against Linus' tree and net-next-2.6,
but just in case it does. Let me know since I can very quickly create a
new tree from my patch queue.

Regards

Marcel

Re: GIT tree plans...

[David Miller]

From: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 11:33:05 +0100

> > There are a bunch of conflicts to resolve in the net-next-2.6
> > tree because of things in Linus's tree.
> > 
> > So what I'm going to do is wait for Linus to take in the
> > net-2.6 pull request I just sent to him.  And afterwards
> > do all the necessary merges and conflict resolution to
> > get everything clean again.
> 
> I don't expect that any of my stuff will conflict since it is nicely
> self-contained and I checked it against Linus' tree and net-next-2.6,
> but just in case it does. Let me know since I can very quickly create a
> new tree from my patch queue.

Sure, will do.  Thanks Marcel.

Re: GIT tree plans...

[David Miller]

From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:21:24 -0800 (PST)

> There are a bunch of conflicts to resolve in the net-next-2.6
> tree because of things in Linus's tree.
> 
> So what I'm going to do is wait for Linus to take in the
> net-2.6 pull request I just sent to him.  And afterwards
> do all the necessary merges and conflict resolution to
> get everything clean again.

All of this work has been done and pushed to kernel.org

git tree plans...

[David Miller]

Here are my immediate plans for the two networking GIT trees:

1) net-2.6

   Nothing special planned, I will keep it stable and
   not pull in linux-2.6's master branch unless something
   potentially creating merge issues arises.

2) net-2.6.26

   Once Linus takes the current changes in net-2.6, I plan
   to pull net-2.6's master into net-2.6.26 in order to
   resolve the wireless and potentially other merge problems

Take care.

Re: git tree plans...

[David Miller]

From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 17:30:53 -0800 (PST)

> 2) net-2.6.26
> 
>    Once Linus takes the current changes in net-2.6, I plan
>    to pull net-2.6's master into net-2.6.26 in order to
>    resolve the wireless and potentially other merge problems

This has been done and pushed to kernel.org