From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Len Brown Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the acpi tree Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 23:11:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: References: <20081201131029.58f6d00c.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20081201140233.cf65c890.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: Received: from vms046pub.verizon.net ([206.46.252.46]:61033 "EHLO vms046pub.verizon.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751470AbYLAEMP (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Nov 2008 23:12:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([96.237.168.40]) by vms046.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KB6008BMJNT90B2@vms046.mailsrvcs.net> for linux-next@vger.kernel.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 22:11:54 -0600 (CST) In-reply-to: <20081201140233.cf65c890.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org > And if you pull Linus' tree into the acpi tree the conflict will go away > as well ... but you (who understand the intention of the code) get to fix > it up rather than me (who is guessing). Your guess was correct -- the patch with the later commit time was the correct one to keep. This was my pilot error. I updated the patch in my release tree and so you got the updated patch via Linus. But I failed to update my test tree, so you got the old patch from my test tree. I've just re-constituted my test branch, so the old patch is gone, and with it this conflict. thanks for pointing this out, -Len