From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756835Ab3GDRnJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jul 2013 13:43:09 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:56078 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756593Ab3GDRnI (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jul 2013 13:43:08 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 19:43:04 +0200 From: Jan Kara To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: LKML Subject: Rebased for_next branch in my linux-fs git tree Message-ID: <20130704174304.GA30265@quack.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello Stephen, I'm just writing this to let you know that I had to rebase for_next branch in my linux-fs git tree because I've messed up my tree and for_linus & for_next branches contained the same patches but with different commit IDs (fast track fixes). When I pulled for_next into for_linus branch, the changelog had commit logs for those patches twice which was rather confusing. The only solution I found was to rebase for_next on top of for_linus to get rid of the duplicate patches. If there's a cleaner solution of the situation, I'm happy to learn it for future... This is just that you know what's going on when you are doing your merge window statistics :). Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR