From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1N3QDT-0007Ps-Oy for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:18:43 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1N3QDO-0007NN-F0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:18:43 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=54291 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1N3QDO-0007NF-9M for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:18:38 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:27201) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1N3QDN-0007e9-Ol for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:18:38 -0400 Message-ID: <4AE94FD3.5030407@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:18:27 +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> <4AE87031.5070309@redhat.com> <4AE87313.5030904@us.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <4AE87313.5030904@us.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; 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 , Gerd Hoffmann , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 10/28/2009 06:36 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > Avi Kivity wrote: >> 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) > > The rebasing is really trivial in most circumstances. It's akin to do a > merge conflict resolution after a git pull. > > My mistake here was not in how I handled the conflict resolution but in > how I folded those commits back into the tree. Well, if it's just an error I don't see a need for a change in procedure. FWIW, I do a lot of rebasing too (for different reasons - not introduce a bug and its fix in the same pull, cross-arch compile fixes, fold reverts and incremental fixes). To ensure I don't screw things up, I always compare the result of the rebase with the original (git diff should show nothing), and build-test every revision on every arch. With ccache it's fairly reasonable, even on s390. -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.