From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jamal Subject: Re: PATCH: rtnetlink explicit flags setting Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 05:39:51 -0400 Message-ID: <1117532391.6134.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20050527141320.GQ15391@postel.suug.ch> <1117206091.6383.73.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050527151913.GA15391@postel.suug.ch> <1117209466.6383.106.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050527165935.GC15391@postel.suug.ch> <1117242749.6251.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050528012810.GN15391@postel.suug.ch> <1117244893.6251.41.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050528121827.GQ15391@postel.suug.ch> <1117296041.19563.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050528161637.GT15391@postel.suug.ch> Reply-To: hadi@cyberus.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "David S. Miller" , netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: Thomas Graf In-Reply-To: <20050528161637.GT15391@postel.suug.ch> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org 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