From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1N3E3l-0007XQ-Im
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:19:53 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1N3E3g-0007Ry-Jq
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:19:52 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=50947 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1N3E3g-0007Ro-DT
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:19:48 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:60292)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <kraxel@redhat.com>) id 1N3E3f-00043Q-JP
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:19:48 -0400
Message-ID: <4AE89944.1040301@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:19:32 +0100
From: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
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> <4AE862B4.1040605@codemonkey.ws>
In-Reply-To: <4AE862B4.1040605@codemonkey.ws>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com>, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

>> Neither of these problems existed in the patches Gerd and I posted, so
>> presumably they came about by trying to merge the two patch sets?
>
> It means I squashed the resolutions incorrectly. I could add a
> bisectability test but that would take a long time to run...

Indeed.

>> How can we avoid this happening in future? What process could we have
>> used to avoid it?
>
> There are a few ways. This was all sitting in staging for quite some
> time so poking at staging proactively could have helped.

I stopped looking at staging.  You stuff almost everything you find on 
the list into staging, so seeing patches queued up there doesn't 
indicate anything ...

cheers,
   Gerd