From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gerlando Falauto Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the l2-mtd tree with the mtd tree Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:36:13 +0200 Message-ID: <5010126D.9030205@keymile.com> References: <20120717110025.35e6d8404104e77019bef6ce@canb.auug.org.au> <50100EDC.3010109@keymile.com> <1343230004.14051.67.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1343230004.14051.67.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: David Woodhouse Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Artem Bityutskiy , "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org Hi David, On 07/25/2012 05:26 PM, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Wed, 2012-07-25 at 17:21 +0200, Gerlando Falauto wrote: >> >> So could someone please spend a few words on what happened in the meantime? >> To me it looks like the l2-mtd tree got rebased at some point, but I'm >> quite at loss about this whole back-and-forth between trees. >> I'm sure a few words could make my life much easier... :-) > > There's no need to worry. The l2-mtd tree is rebased on top of the mtd > tree, and contains patches that Artem thinks I'm likely to accept. > > I apply them, sometimes with a few minor changes, or I occasionally > reject them. Sometimes if Artem doesn't *immediately* update his tree > after I push changes to mine, a 'conflict' appears between the two. You > can ignore it. > thanks for your explanation. So, is it correct to say that any patch contained within l2-mtd (but *NOT* within linux-mtd) will eventually be killed? (Or rather, *replaced* by the version eventually applied to linux-mtd)? In other words, when you say "Artem updates his tree", it is technically a rebase (so his version of a patch actually looks as if never existed), right? Thanks a lot! Gerlando