From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] libata: improve initialization and legacy handling, take#3 Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 07:59:30 -0400 Message-ID: <44DB1FA2.6050604@pobox.com> References: <11551977882917-git-send-email-htejun@gmail.com> <44DB101F.2080505@pobox.com> <44DB1953.3060803@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:62940 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161152AbWHJL7e (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Aug 2006 07:59:34 -0400 In-Reply-To: <44DB1953.3060803@gmail.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Tejun Heo wrote: > I see. For this patchset though, pulling pata-drivers that way would > give it a small window of commits (probably just one) where pata drivers > won't build properly. tj-pata-drivers was built by... > > 1. pulling #tj-upstream before removing old legacy handling > 2. updating #tj-pata-drivers to use new legacy handling > 3. killing old legacy handling in #tj-upstream > 4. pulling again Yeah, usually I fix up brokenness myself. There is no perfect system :) > Such that pata-drivers doesn't fail to build after upstream merge. I > won't make ALL branch from now on and tell you if merge needs some > special ordering. Yep, that sounds better. Jeff