From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the v4l-dvb tree Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 02:18:33 -0300 Message-ID: <4BEB8BA9.5070001@infradead.org> References: <20100513130016.25b76c3f.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:50640 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752003Ab0EMFSh (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 May 2010 01:18:37 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100513130016.25b76c3f.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Mauro, > > Today's linux-next merge of the v4l-dvb tree produced a mountain of > conflicts so I have used the version from next-20100512 for today. > Please either merge Linus' tree into yours or rebase you tree on top of > Linus' tree. There are a large number of commits that are in your tree > that have been rebased before being included into Linus' tree and this > caused conflicts with further changes in your tree. I'll be pulling from Linus on my tree. I did it yesterday, after my last changes, but it seems that I've made a huge mistake... Several conflicts that I've already fixed reappeared. I suspect that I've merged it with an older temporary branch by mistake. Anyway, it is fixed, by simply going back to the last reflog before the error, and re-merging the new patches again. A pull from Linus didn't show any conflict. So, it should be now OK for you to merge. > Please consider changing your work flow so that you don't rebase things > in your tree before sending them to Linus. I'm already in process of changing my procedure. The problem is that I didn't find yet a perfect way to handle my tree. I'm getting some new ideas, and intend to implement them for 2.6.35 development cycle (linux-next for 2.6.36). -- Cheers, Mauro