On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 01:19:13 +0200 "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 01:43:58PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 17:48:37 +0200 "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:53:18AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > Which kernel is this against? It has conflicts in 3 files with Linus's latest: > > > > v4.2-rc8. > > > > > > Sorry I based it on linux-next, will respin the rename patch onto tip/auto-latest > > > > > > > Doing that will make the patch kinda useless, because then the patch > > will trash more mature work which is pending in linux-next, one week > > before the merge window opens. > > > > A better plan would be to base the patches on linux-next then wait for > > 4.3-rc1. > > There's a catch-22 issue here either way, for instance this rename > patch has been being baked for probably 2 releases already but the > difficulty has been trying to find the appropriate time to merge it > without conflict. > > If you do it in the beginning of the merge window, you have to ask > yourself in what tree it will be done. Since subsystems are topic > specific that means that subsystem will end up having a conflict > at the end of the merge window. Yes it's a special case. I think the best way of handling such things is to get them in to Linus either right at the end of the merge window or the day after he releases -rc1. This is when most people's trees are mostly empty. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fbdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
