On 17/01/2023 16:18, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 04:05:18PM +0200, Péter Ujfalusi wrote: > >> It is the topology ops optionality stuff. It is in itself a trivial (for >> my eyes) conflict, but it is a conflict never the less. > >> This is not going to backport cleanly to stable either. > >> What would be the preferred way to handle this (for next, for 6.2 and >> for 6.1.x)? > > Can you send me a version that applies against for-6.2, if it > doesn't backport to stable you can send an explicit backport > patch once that becomes an issue. I'm much happier resolving a > merge between 6.2 and 6.3 than on initial application. Sure, just to be sure: v3 which is against 6.2-rc, right? I can assist you in case of a conflict. -- Péter
