Re: PATCH: rtnetlink explicit flags setting

[jamal <hadi@cyberus.ca>]

On Sat, 2005-28-05 at 18:16 +0200, Thomas Graf wrote:
> * jamal <1117296041.19563.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> 2005-05-28 12:00
> > > I just tested both patches for about 30 minutes. Everything OK. Feel
> > > free to apply the patches.
> > 
> > We have another problem. What tree is this against? Both patches have
> > failures patching against latest davem and linus git trees.
> 
> It's against my davem-pending tree which should reflect the current
> state of davem's tree so they _should_ apply on his side. In this
> specific case you're probably missing the neighbour table patches.


Now you really have to send some swiss chocolate over ;->
It still doesnt apply to Davems latest tree.

> Basically I produce diffs this way:
> 
> separate tree per patchset -> merge into  testing tree ->
> testing period -.  merge into $person-pending -> extraction
> of patches and submission.
> 

Almost very close to what i do - which could be improved or you keep a
few hundred trees. Jeff Garzik (some email to netdev with a HOWTO ) was
talking about some new scheme where instead of trees you use branches of
the same tree. I didnt quiet follow his trick.

> I was trying to get some more quality control into my workflow,
> so I started testing patches for 3-4 weeks to avoid fallouts
> but apparently this is failing miserably at the moment due to
> some broken scripts of mine.

I think the problem in this case was you had already commited to that
tree your changes that you sent to Dave. And the tree you were using as
a base for generating the patch was only something you and Dave know
about.

cheers,
jamal