Re: linux-next: i2c tree build failure

[Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1672 bytes --]

Hi Jean,

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:16:47 +0200 Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org> wrote:
>
> OK, thanks for the clarification. I did not notice Greg had split some
> of his trees that way. Makes sense.
> 
> > It you decide to leave that patch out and
> > change the dependency, please let me know as I will then have to merge
> > your tree after Greg's (it is currently earlier.
> 
> Regardless of what I do, I think it would make sense to merge
> driver-core before driver subsystem trees. I would insert if before pci.

I merge driver-core near the end because it often has API changes in it
and Linus suggested that the pain of API changes should be with the
changer.

> I am also surprised that I would have to tell you. What is the purpose
> of the NEXT_BASE tag if you do not check for dependencies automatically?

I use the tag to choose the base when I import the quilt series into git.
So far I have not needed to automate the ordering of the imports.

> Anyway, if you say git can deal with duplicate patches OK, then I think
> I'll simply re-add the patch on my end. But I do not have a strong
> opinion on this either, so if you prefer clean dependencies and
> ordering without duplicate patches, it is just as easy for me to leave
> the redundant patch out and restore the NEXT_BASE tag.

I prefer less dependencies (so you could put the patch back in), however,
that means if Greg changes the patch, then we will have two slightly
different versions to merge.  I can cope with that as well.

Just readd the patch :-)

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]