From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Artem Bityutskiy Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ubifs tree Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:23:21 +0300 Message-ID: <487EF369.2080609@nokia.com> References: <20080717171059.1bf8b572.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Reply-To: Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.105.134]:33284 "EHLO mgw-mx09.nokia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751555AbYGQH0E (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jul 2008 03:26:04 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080717171059.1bf8b572.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org Hi Stephen Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Today's linux-next merge of the ubifs tree got conflicts in > fs/ubifs/budget.c, fs/ubifs/debug.c, fs/ubifs/dir.c, fs/ubifs/file.c, > fs/ubifs/io.c, fs/ubifs/journal.c, fs/ubifs/shrinker.c, fs/ubifs/tnc.= c > and fs/ubifs/xattr.c between commit > 1e51764a3c2ac05a23a22b2a95ddee4d9bffb16d ("UBIFS: add new flash file > system") from Linus' tree and various commits from the ubifs tree. Yes, right. I guess I should have informed you about this, apologies. UBIFS is rather non-typical things for -next I guess. No one is interested in UBIFS history _before_ it got into mainline, which is about several hundred commits. Thus, we folded these all into few huge large commits, in order not to garbage the mainline tree. I have amended the 'for_andrew' branch of ubifs-2.6.git, and now it has the same commits as in Linus's tree. But it is still based on 2.6.26 release. --=20 Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy (=D0=90=D1=80=D1=82=D1=91=D0=BC =D0=91=D0=B8=D1=82=D1=8E= =D1=86=D0=BA=D0=B8=D0=B9)