On 31.03.2013, at 12:49, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:37:42AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: >> On 03/25/2013 08:33:12 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:35:09AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>> >>>> On 26.03.2013, at 00:16, Scott Wood wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 03/25/2013 05:59:39 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>>>> On 25.03.2013, at 23:54, Scott Wood wrote: >>>>>>> On 03/25/2013 05:32:11 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>>>>>> On 25.03.2013, at 23:21, Scott Wood wrote: >>>>>>>>> -next? These are bugfixes, at least partially for >>> regressions from 3.8 (that I pointed out before the bugs were >>> merged!), that should go into master. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Also, what about: >>>>>>>>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/226227/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You've got all four patches in kvm-ppc-3.9 as of a few >>> weeks ago -- will you be requesting a pull for that soon? >>>>>>>> Sigh. I guess I've screwed up the whole "let's make -next >>> an unusable tree and fix regressions in a separate one" workflow >>> again. Sorry for that. >>>>>>>> Since the patches already trickled into kvm's next branch, >>> all we can do now is to wait for them to come back through stable, >>> right? Marcelo, Gleb? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, you can still submit that kvm-ppc-3.9 pull request. :-) >>>>>> I can, but nobody would pull it, as it'd create ugly merge >>> commits when 3.10 opens >>>>> >>>>> That's a lousy excuse for leaving bugs unfixed. >>>> >>>> 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? >> > Because Linus distastes it and mat refuse to pull. There is a way to avoid > such double commits: push fix to Linus tree and merge it back to next. Yes, that's the normal workflow. But what if we screw up (like I did)? Does having a working 3.9 kernel win over double commits in the tree? I'd say yes, but it might be best to just ask Linus directly. Linus, I accidentally sent a pull request including fixes that were meant for master for kvm/next which got accepted. Now we have those commits in there. However, I would prefer if we could have them in master, so that we have a known good 3.9 kernel for kvm on powerpc. I could send another pull request against master, but that would mean that after merging things back on the next merge window, there would be a few duplicate commits in the history. Do you think that's a big no-go, or would you be ok with duplicate commits in case of an occasional screwup? Thanks, Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
