From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:37124 "EHLO smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755863Ab0BJUph (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:45:37 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:37:35 -0500 From: "John W. Linville" To: David Miller Cc: johannes@sipsolutions.net, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mb@bu3sch.de Subject: Re: pull request: wireless-2.6 2010-02-10 Message-ID: <20100210203734.GE3286@tuxdriver.com> References: <20100210201953.GC3286@tuxdriver.com> <20100210.122540.149553948.davem@davemloft.net> <20100210203227.GD3286@tuxdriver.com> <20100210.123503.129355851.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20100210.123503.129355851.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 12:35:03PM -0800, David Miller wrote: > From: "John W. Linville" > Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:32:28 -0500 > > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 12:25:40PM -0800, David Miller wrote: > >> From: "John W. Linville" > >> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:19:54 -0500 > >> > >> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 11:36:58AM -0800, David Miller wrote: > >> >> From: Johannes Berg > >> >> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:15:37 +0100 > >> >> > >> >> > It was intentional -- that sdev doesn't even have an irq member, but > >> >> > nobody ever noticed because of the wrong ifdef. > >> >> > >> >> Ok, then this needs to be explained in the commit message. > >> > > >> > OK...mind if I just revert the current version and ask Michael to > >> > resubmit with an appropriate changelog entry? > >> > >> Have you pulled this tree into others already? Why not > >> just pop out the commit and fix it's commit message, then > >> reapply? > >> > >> Having the revert commit in there is really stupid just for this. > > > > I have it pulled into wireless-next-2.6 to fix a merge conflict (from > > a latter commit). It is also pulled into wireless-testing but that > > is obviously less of an issue. > > Ok, forget this, I'll just pull it in as-is. K, thx! > But we have to have a better system to handle cases where I > don't like a change you're asking me to pull in and I want > changes made to it. > > If you want to push stuff into wireless-next-2.6, get it into > my tree first. That way we can tidy things up before it > propagates. Yeah, I was trying to be proactive about the merge conflicts and avoid the emails about the conflicts in -next. But I guess that isn't a huge deal anyway, so I'll be a bit more cautious in the future. Thanks! John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready.