Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mvebu tree

Jason Cooper
2013-10-10T11:40:51Z

On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 12:57:03PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 10:37:27AM -0400, Jason Cooper wrote:
> > Thierry,
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 04:14:27PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the mvebu tree got conflicts in
> >
> > I looked in your scripts repo, and couldn't find the script you use to
> > send out this email thread :(
>
> Well, that's because I'm doing them manually.

:) Nice. I do like the threading, it provides a nice consolidated
summary of the day's tree.

> > Since I can't create a patch, I'll just ask, could you include the
> > commit id of the branch you pulled in the email?
> >
> > eg:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the mvebu tree (477cdaf) got conflicts in
> > ...
> >
> > I had uploaded a new for-next branch less than 30 minutes before you
> > sent this out, so I wasn't sure which you were working with. Not a big
> > deal, just thought I'd pass along the idea for the next time you're
> > tweaking your scripts.
>
> It should be possible to extend the Next/fetch script with something
> that writes the SHA1 of each tree to a file. Stephen's linux-next trees
> contain such a file (Next/SHA1s). I'll see if I can find the time to
> update my scripts to do the same. That won't make it magically appear in
> the notification email, but I can probably remember to do that in the
> future.

No, not necessary. I don't want to add unnecessary work to your plate.
If the script modification put it in the email notification
automagically, it might be worth doing, but if a tree owner is already
looking at your -next tree, it's trivial to go one step further and look
at the merge commit (which is what I did in this case).

thanks, and sorry for the noise.

Jason.