From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752229AbZHaL7M (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Aug 2009 07:59:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751309AbZHaL7L (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Aug 2009 07:59:11 -0400 Received: from chilli.pcug.org.au ([203.10.76.44]:40550 "EHLO smtps.tip.net.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751014AbZHaL7J (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Aug 2009 07:59:09 -0400 Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 21:59:05 +1000 From: Stephen Rothwell To: Jean Delvare Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Greg KH Subject: Re: linux-next: i2c tree build failure Message-Id: <20090831215905.caadce2f.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: <20090831131647.3f609ad4@hyperion.delvare> References: <20090831111935.5059565b.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20090831120449.3f64aa74@hyperion.delvare> <20090831210335.f382d7ff.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20090831131647.3f609ad4@hyperion.delvare> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.7.1 (GTK+ 2.16.5; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="PGP-SHA1"; boundary="Signature=_Mon__31_Aug_2009_21_59_05_+1000_fpPjmB2PgN2pdiIT" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --Signature=_Mon__31_Aug_2009_21_59_05_+1000_fpPjmB2PgN2pdiIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Jean, On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:16:47 +0200 Jean Delvare wrote: > > OK, thanks for the clarification. I did not notice Greg had split some > of his trees that way. Makes sense. >=20 > > 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. >=20 > 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 :-) --=20 Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/ --Signature=_Mon__31_Aug_2009_21_59_05_+1000_fpPjmB2PgN2pdiIT Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkqbuwkACgkQjjKRsyhoI8z07gCffwjDfqIS5/sUxWXYacczmbjg eFEAnAp5PjUq9vBsQJPEQx+fKIFZq9bu =GYIO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Mon__31_Aug_2009_21_59_05_+1000_fpPjmB2PgN2pdiIT--