From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1N3BK0-0002gd-9n for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:24:28 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1N3BJv-0002bR-UY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:24:27 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=37658 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1N3BJv-0002bE-IZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:24:23 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:48567) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1N3BJv-0005OC-5C for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:24:23 -0400 Message-ID: <4AE87031.5070309@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:24:17 +0200 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Handling merge conflicts [was Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/19 v2] Add virtio-net/tap support for partial csums and GSO] References: <1256229830-28066-1-git-send-email-markmc@redhat.com> <1256740226.5105.59.camel@blaa> <4AE85BC6.1080508@redhat.com> <4AE86325.5090000@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: <4AE86325.5090000@codemonkey.ws> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Mark McLoughlin , Anthony Liguori , Gerd Hoffmann , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 10/28/2009 05:28 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >> Hi, >> >>> Should either Gerd or I have merged the others' changes into our tree >>> and asked you to pull? Should you just refuse conflicts and ask us to >>> re-post? Or ...? >> >> I think the best way to deal with that would be to simply not merge >> stuff which doesn't apply. Likewise for stuff which doesn't build. >> >> Pick one patch series, merge it, ask for a rebase of the other >> series, i.e. basically offload the conflict resolving to the patch >> submitter. Reduces your workload and non-trivial conflicts are better >> handled by the submitter anyway. > > That would require a series to be merged within a very short time > period which does not allow appropriate review on the list. > Why? When you detect the conflict, ask the unlucky second to rebase (on top of some git branch). The rebased series doesn't need a re-review unless the submitter says he needed to rework it significantly. (IOW, the submitter's rebase doesn't need more review than your conflict resolution) -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function