On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 10:22:39AM -0500, Kent Overstreet wrote: > On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 07:29:54AM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > > Looks like Kent hadn't merged that into his branch for some reason; > > IIRC, he'd been OK with the fix and had no objections to that stuff > > sitting in -next, so... > > I did, but then you said something about duplicate commit IDs? I thought > that meant they were going through your tree. Huh? Same patch applied in two trees => problem. A tree pulling a branch from another => perfectly fine, as long as the branch pulled is not rebased in the first tree. So something like "I have a patch your tree needs, but I might end up doing more stuff on top of it for my own work" can be solved by creating a never-rebased branch in my tree, with just the stuff that might need to be shared and telling you to pull from it. After that each of us can ignore the other tree. No conflicts in -next, no worries about the order of pull requests to mainline...
