From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: git repo and #upstream merging Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:54:14 -0500 Message-ID: <47672846.4050609@garzik.org> References: <11976987063011-git-send-email-htejun@gmail.com> <4763711A.8010204@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]:47560 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751411AbXLRByQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:54:16 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4763711A.8010204@gmail.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo Cc: hancockr@shaw.ca, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Tejun Heo wrote: > Tejun Heo wrote: >> This is the second take of improve-ACPI-corner-case-handling patchset >> and contains the following ten patches. > > Jeff, this patchset can also be pulled from the following git tree. > > master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/libata-dev.git acpi-fixes > > Also, merging this into #upstream can cause some interesting conflicts > w/ ACPI timing handling update patches. If you ACK the patchset, I'll > prep merged git HEAD for you. It was easier for me to * merge the patches into #upstream-fixes * rebase #upstream on top of #upstream-fixes, while dropping the conflicting ACPI patches And IMO that gives you a bit more freedom to do the merged git -- though that obviously implies you will need to resend the ACPI patchset that you had previously submitted. Jeff