From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1N3EDO-0007qb-45
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:29:50 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1N3EDI-0007l3-Vo
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:29:49 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=51257 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1N3EDI-0007kv-Oe
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:29:44 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:27447)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <kraxel@redhat.com>) id 1N3EDI-00063o-Hn
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:29:44 -0400
Message-ID: <4AE89B9F.7000406@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:29:35 +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>	<4AE85BC6.1080508@redhat.com>
	<4AE86325.5090000@codemonkey.ws> <4AE87031.5070309@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4AE87031.5070309@redhat.com>
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: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com>, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 10/28/09 17:24, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> 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.

I fully agree here.  For a new version of a patch (series) where the 
only change is rebasing and resolving conflicts I don't see the point in 
requiring another full week for review.

cheers
   Gerd