From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicholas Mc Guire Subject: Re: process question - linux-next conflicts Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 17:42:51 +0000 Message-ID: <20160705174251.GA20939@osadl.at> References: <20160705130124.GA18622@osadl.at> <20160705233634.55d802c3@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mail.osadl.at ([92.243.35.153]:42994 "EHLO mail.osadl.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751407AbcGERnA (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jul 2016 13:43:00 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160705233634.55d802c3@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 11:36:34PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Nicholas, >=20 > On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 13:01:24 +0000 Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: > > > > linux-next daily tree mails include information on conflicts like=20 > >=20 > > "The drm-misc tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree." > >=20 > > and if one looks at these email-reported conflicts they are quite > > inffrequent, e.g. March 2016 range from 0-5 with a mean of about 1= =2E5, > > but the plots on http://neuling.org/linux-next-size.html for=20 > > conflicts show significantly higher numbers, again March 2016 > > range between aprox. 10 and 75 with a mean of aprox. 40 - so I=B4m= =20 > > mixing up something here - are the plots refereing to different=20 > > conflicts or am I just interpreting the e-mail notes incorectly ? >=20 > The graphs show the total number of conflicts you would get if you di= d > the merges of all the trees from scratch on any one day. But I only > report new conflicts each day. > thanks - that explains it - what confused me is that the plot never see= ms to reach 0 which I would have expected - but I guess that is due to the= =20 fixes you are applying and/or trees that get temporarily dropping trees= =20 that dont resolve conflicts. thx! hofrat