On 1/10/21 10:57 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 11:43:54AM -0800, Tom Rix wrote: >> On 1/10/21 9:05 AM, Moritz Fischer wrote: >>> Tom, >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 07:46:29AM -0800, Tom Rix wrote: >>>> On 1/7/21 8:09 AM, Tom Rix wrote: >>>>> On 1/6/21 8:37 PM, Moritz Fischer wrote: >>>>>> This is a resend of the previous (unfortunately late) patchset of >>>>>> changes for FPGA DFL. >>>>> Is there something I can do to help ? >>>>> >>>>> I am paid to look after linux-fpga, so i have plenty of time. >>>>> >>>>> Some ideas of what i am doing now privately i can do publicly. >>>>> >>>>> 1. keep linux-fpga sync-ed to greg's branch so linux-fpga is normally in a pullable state. >>> Is it not? It currently points to v5.11-rc1. If I start applying patches >>> that require the changes that went into Greg's branch I can merge. >> I mean the window between when we have staged patches and when they go into Greg's branch. >> >> We don't have any now, maybe those two trival ones. >> >> Since Greg's branch moves much faster than ours, our staging branch needs to be rebased regularly until its merge. > Ick, no! NEVER rebase a public branch. Why does it matter the speed of > my branch vs. anyone elses? Git handles merges very well. > > Just like Linus's branches move much faster than mine, and I don't > rebase my branches, you shouldn't rebase yours. > > Becides, I'm only taking _PATCHES_ for fpga changes at the moment, no > git pulls, so why does it matter at all for any of this? > > What is the problem you are trying to solve here? This 5.12 fpga patchset not making it into 5.11. At some point before the 5.11 window, I tried it on next and it failed to merge. This points to needing some c/i so it does not happen again. Tom > > thanks, > > greg k-h >
