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: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 10:10:55 -0800 Message-ID: <1296843055.4078.25.camel@m0nster> References: <20110131131401.5d6c7646.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <8ya4o8m70jp.fsf@huya.qualcomm.com> <20110202194359.GC27065@kroah.com> <20110202200030.GA26104@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110202203252.GD28479@kroah.com> <20110202204453.GB26104@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <1296839855.4078.12.camel@m0nster> <20110204174244.GA7396@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.251]:54435 "EHLO wolverine02.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751839Ab1BDSK5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Feb 2011 13:10:57 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20110204174244.GA7396@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Russell King Cc: Nicolas Pitre , Greg KH , David Brown , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, lkml , Stepan Moskovchenko , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 17:42 +0000, Russell King wrote: > So you tell me - do I take the p2v stuff out of public view tonight > because it's not stable, and therefore you don't even know about the > conflict? > > Or do I continue publishing the unstable changes so that people have > the ability to see what's going on in my tree and find potential > conflicts? > > I really don't care which - but I'll warn you that keeping changes > hidden will result in a reduction of patch quality, and much much > much less testing of those changes. And I won't care at all when you > complain that MSM's broken because of one of my patches. > > Exactly what would you prefer? I'm not really opposed to any of your objectives. What it sounds like is that you have a "stable" branch, and an "unstable" branch. Both branches are in linux-next , and we're seeing conflicts from the unstable one. Is that accurate? I think we can deal with the issues as long as you have one branch that you don't rebase, and things eventually move into that branch. So if we have a conflict then we can base our tree on your stable branch , and have confidence that your not rebasing it, or merge that into our tree. I think the problem is that when you say your rebase it's not clear if your rebasing all your branches, or if you only rebasing one unstable branch.. Daniel -- Sent by an consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.