From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: linux-next: current pending merge fix patches
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:01:30 +0100
Message-ID: <20100301090130.GA13880@elte.hu>
References: <20100301160445.5e281f11.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
 <20100301081021.GB8049@elte.hu>
 <20100301195532.d9e5ae64.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:33481 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1750812Ab0CAJBz (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-next@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 1 Mar 2010 04:01:55 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100301195532.d9e5ae64.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-next.vger.kernel.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: Linus <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>, Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>, Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>, Sage Weil <sage@newdream.net>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>, Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>, J??rn Engel <joern@logfs.org>


* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi Ingo,
> 
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 09:10:21 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> >
> > > This could also be taken as a reminder to the respective maintiners that 
> > > they may want to do a merge of your tree before asking you to pull theirs.
> > 
> > I dont think that's generally correct for trivial conflicts: it's better if 
> > Linus does the merge of a tree that is based in some stable tree.
> 
> In general I agree.  I have singled out these conflict resolutions because 
> they involve either files not obvious from the conflicts (newly introduced 
> or chunks of code moved between files), or chunks of code that are 
> introduced in one tree but need to be modified after the otheris merged.  So 
> in that sense they are a heads up to Linus because they are only found after 
> you do the merge and then get a build failure (if you do the right builds).
> 
> So they can be resolved by Linus after he merges the second tree or by the 
> original maintainer of one of the trees merging/cherrypicking (part of) the 
> other tree or waiting for Linus to merge the other tree and then do a merge 
> with Linus' tree.

Conflict reminders are certainly useful - even for trivial commits.

My comments mostly related to the part of your suggestion that subsystem 
maintainers may merge in Linus's tree before they send their pull request to 
Linus - which i dont agree with in the general case, for the aforementioned 
reasons.

Thanks,

	Ingo