On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 07:25:40PM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > 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... I'm confused about what rebasing has to do with this? I was assuming the patches would take the same route into Linus's tree as into -next, that just seemed simplest to me; I'm completely fine with either taking them into my tree or you sending them directly, I'd already looked at them. Or was the issue that they were in your -next branch because you had other stuff on top of them, but you still thought I was taking them?
