From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Loic Dachary Subject: dealing with conflicting pull requests Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 12:39:14 +0200 Message-ID: <559E4F52.9070007@dachary.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="IrHRoCXavjREqVcVQVjaNMqrtwmQRs8t0" Return-path: Received: from mail2.dachary.org ([91.121.57.175]:47265 "EHLO smtp.dmail.dachary.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750939AbbGIKjS (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jul 2015 06:39:18 -0400 Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: "Shu, Xinxin" , Nathan Cutler , Abhishek L Cc: Ceph Development This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --IrHRoCXavjREqVcVQVjaNMqrtwmQRs8t0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear co-backporters, For the first time we have a few conflicting pull requests that prevent m= erging all in the integration branch. https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4597 https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/5043 https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4788 https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4636 https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4635 I think the simplest way to deal with that is to arbitrarily pick a few t= hat apply cleanly and just DNM the others so they wait for the next round= of integration testing. After the first round of integration test, the c= hosen one will be merged and the DNM will have to be rebased to resolve t= he conflict, but that's what we do routinely. What do you think ? --=20 Lo=C3=AFc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre --IrHRoCXavjREqVcVQVjaNMqrtwmQRs8t0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlWeT1MACgkQ8dLMyEl6F20IMACeL45j1ReYVvhba4ewEKoo24qx XhAAnRWyWTzFnywTKblGjcte8vDpmuae =P3Bf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --IrHRoCXavjREqVcVQVjaNMqrtwmQRs8t0--