On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 03:50:13PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 11.04.2013, at 15:45, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:59:04PM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 03:33:12AM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote: > >>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:35:09AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote: > >>>> I agree. So if it doesn't hurt to have the same commits in kvm/next and kvm/master, I'd be more than happy to send another pull request with the important fixes against kvm/master as well. > >>>> > >>> If it will result in the same commit showing twice in the Linus tree in 3.10 we cannot do that. > >> > >> Why not? In the circumstances it seems perfectly reasonable to me. > >> Git should merge the branches without any problem, and even if it > >> doesn't, Linus is good at fixing merge conflicts. > >> > >> Paul. > > > > Yes, should avoid duplicate commits but its not fatal for them to exist. > > So I may send a pull request against 3.9 with the 3 commits that already are in kvm/next? If you decide that the fixes are important enough to justify the existance of duplicate commits, i don't see a problem. http://yarchive.net/comp/linux/git_rebase.html "In fact, we have always had duplicated commits even when they are passed around as email - just because perhaps two different trees simply needed the same fix, and rather than wait for it, they both integrated it (and then when they get merged, the same patch exists twice in the history, just with different committer info etc)." -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
