reconciling pending gcc recipe updates

reconciling pending gcc recipe updates

[Peter A. Bigot]

Khem and I both have pending patches to recipes-devtools/gcc.  A problem 
is that the first one of mine is a whitespace cleanup, and I don't think 
his are based on that.

What can be done to effectively reconcile any conflicts between these?

I'd really prefer to keep the cleanup patch, so I'd be happy to 
cherry-pick Khem's changes into my series.  I'm not sure if his "Looks 
good" follow-ups qualify for the addition of Signed-of-by in my other 
changes.  I also expect at least one more cleanup patch (a rename so the 
recipe nomenclature matches the GCC configuration option naming, viz. 
s/fpu/float/ when determining --with-float which is different from 
--with-fpu).

If my series stays live I'd be happy to add the gcc 4.9.x patch that got 
Torvalds' knickers in a twist to the set.

Peter

Re: reconciling pending gcc recipe updates

[Richard Purdie]

On Thu, 2014-08-14 at 03:47 -0500, Peter A. Bigot wrote:
> Khem and I both have pending patches to recipes-devtools/gcc.  A problem 
> is that the first one of mine is a whitespace cleanup, and I don't think 
> his are based on that.
> 
> What can be done to effectively reconcile any conflicts between these?
> 
> I'd really prefer to keep the cleanup patch, so I'd be happy to 
> cherry-pick Khem's changes into my series.  I'm not sure if his "Looks 
> good" follow-ups qualify for the addition of Signed-of-by in my other 
> changes.  I also expect at least one more cleanup patch (a rename so the 
> recipe nomenclature matches the GCC configuration option naming, viz. 
> s/fpu/float/ when determining --with-float which is different from 
> --with-fpu).
> 
> If my series stays live I'd be happy to add the gcc 4.9.x patch that got 
> Torvalds' knickers in a twist to the set.

Rebasing Khem's patches on top of yours and adding the patch you mention
both sound like good things to me and it helps me, thanks!

Cheers,

Richard