From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Walker Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the msm tree with the arm tree Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 13:37:31 -0700 Message-ID: <1287434251.5588.23.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> References: <20101018103540.7bd9c535.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <1287432774.5588.5.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> <201010182219.25890.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201010182219.25890.arnd@arndb.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Nicolas Pitre , Russell King , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jeremy Kerr , Jeff Ohlstein List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 22:19 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Monday 18 October 2010 22:12:54 Daniel Walker wrote: > > On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 15:29 -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > > > > Ok, well in that case why not accept this immediately after the merge > > > > window? A point when everything is quiet, and most of the tree's are > > > > empty? > > > > > > RMK has his own merge window which closes about at the same time as > > > Linus' one opens. We thought this was happening last week and therefore > > > this change was supposed to be the last one. > > > > It seems like that could potentially make these kinds of problem worse, > > since your merging things immediately before sending them to Linus. Like > > right now we only have a fairly short amount of time to correct this > > conflict. > > What Nicolas was talking about is the *end* of the merge window, not the > start. This is how all sensible maintainer trees work: you get to > merge stuff into the maintainer tree for a number of weeks (some start > at -rc1, other start a bit later). When Linus tells people to get ready > for the release, the subsystem goes into regression fix mode and when > Linus opens his merge window, everything should be reasonably stable. I think the term "merge window" is a little mis-leading here.. Your describing development. To me the term merge window is indicating a short period when you get changes in, not the whole -rc cycle. > > > > Well how about I merge this change into my tree ? > > > > > > If you ask RMK to merge your tree in his that would be much simpler to > > > add this change in a single pass afterwards. > > > > I can do that , but would I still be able to merge stuff into my tree? > > Seems like I could, Russell would just clean up the conflict and my tree > > would just move forward like it has been already , and I would send the > > whole thing to Linus. > > When you know that Russell does not rebase his tree, you can pull his > tree into yours whenever a change hits his tree that impacts you in > a major way. You shouldn't do this too frequently, but it's a good way > to resolve conflicts like this one. If I did that all of Russell's changesets would get mixed with mine when I send the pull request .. That would just create confusion .. It's OK if Russell sends my commits to Linus, but I'm not going to send Russell's commits. Daniel