From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752468Ab2GZCKp (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:10:45 -0400 Received: from mail-gh0-f174.google.com ([209.85.160.174]:62412 "EHLO mail-gh0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752352Ab2GZCKK (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:10:10 -0400 Message-ID: <5010A6FE.7000604@pobox.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:10:06 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linus Torvalds CC: Andrew Morton , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, LKML Subject: Re: [git patches] libata updates References: <20120725203551.GA19762@havoc.gtf.org> <20120725204350.GA20530@havoc.gtf.org> <50107297.305@pobox.com> <50107A0D.3060003@pobox.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 07/25/2012 07:30 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> >> What is the right course in when a post-merge change is needed? > > Just describe the issue and the required change. Than I can just do it > as part of the merge, and now the whole series is bisectable, > including the merge itself. > > Here's a (fairly bad) example: > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg192349.html > > and the reason I call that a bad example is not because that's a bad > pull request, but simply that those are all real data conflicts, not > the more subtle kind of "it merges fine, but because new code > introduced uses an interface that changed, you need to do xyz". Thanks, so noted. I guess if the merge gets more complex than something easily described in an email, that implies that maintainers should do more cross-coordination and maybe a merge tree. What's the best way for libata to move forward, now that this hideous merge has been pushed out to the Well Known libata branches? The pre-jgarzik-merge commit you would have pulled is dc7f71f486f4f5fa96f6dcf86833da020cde8a11 had my pull request been proper. I can lop off the top 3 commits and force-update the libata-dev.git branches, then send a new pull request -- but you have grumbled at that sort of behavior in maintainer trees before too... Jeff