From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Delvare Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the i2c tree with the arm-current tree Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 09:25:59 +0200 Message-ID: <20090506092559.2d9e53cb@hyperion.delvare> References: <20090506131031.83f1b04d.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20090506071547.GA29466@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from zone0.gcu-squad.org ([212.85.147.21]:14768 "EHLO services.gcu-squad.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751372AbZEFH0R (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 May 2009 03:26:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090506071547.GA29466@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Russell King Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Nicolas Pitre , Wolfram Sang , LKML Hi Russell, On Wed, 6 May 2009 08:15:48 +0100, Russell King wrote: > Since defconfig updates are always going to create lots of noise, and > the files are normally out of date, the *only* sensible way to handle > updates is to have one tree dealing with them per architecture. > > Spreading them across multiple trees and then expecting merges to sort > out the resulting mess is unreasonable; they just change far too much > when updates happen. Moreover, defconfig updates should be in their > own separate commit and not combined with other changes. I fail to see how you can handle configuration option renames gracefully with your proposed model. -- Jean Delvare