On Wed, 22 Nov 2023, Luben Tuikov <ltuikov89@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2023-11-22 07:00, Maxime Ripard wrote: >> Hi Luben, >> >> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 09:27:58AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: >>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 09:11:43AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: >>>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 06:46:21PM -0500, Luben Tuikov wrote: >>>>> On 2023-11-13 22:08, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>>>>> BTW, cherry picking commits does not avoid conflicts - in fact it can >>>>>> cause conflicts if there are further changes to the files affected by >>>>>> the cherry picked commit in either the tree/branch the commit was >>>>>> cheery picked from or the destination tree/branch (I have to deal with >>>>>> these all the time when merging the drm trees in linux-next). Much >>>>>> better is to cross merge the branches so that the patch only appears >>>>>> once or have a shared branches that are merged by any other branch that >>>>>> needs the changes. >>>>>> >>>>>> I understand that things are not done like this in the drm trees :-( >>>>> >>>>> Hi Stephen, >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for the clarification--understood. I'll be more careful in the future. >>>>> Thanks again! :-) >>>> >>>> In this case, the best thing to do would indeed have been to ask the >>>> drm-misc maintainers to merge drm-misc-fixes into drm-misc-next. >>>> >>>> We're doing that all the time, but we're not ubiquitous so you need to >>>> ask us :) >>>> >>>> Also, dim should have caught that when you pushed the branch. Did you >>>> use it? >>> >>> Yeah dim must be used, exactly to avoid these issues. Both for applying >>> patches (so not git am directly, or cherry-picking from your own >>> development branch), and for pushing. The latter is even checked for by >>> the server (dim sets a special push flag which is very long and contains a >>> very clear warning if you bypass it). >>> >>> If dim was used, this would be a bug in the dim script that we need to >>> fix. >> >> It would be very useful for you to explain what happened here so we >> improve the tooling or doc and can try to make sure it doesn't happen >> again >> >> Maxime > > There is no problem with the tooling--I just forced the commit in. Wait what? What do you mean by forcing the commit in? Bypass dim? If yes, please *never* do that when you're dealing with dim managed branches. That's part of the deal for getting commit access, along with following all the other maintainer tools documentation. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel
