On Mon, 7 Apr 2014 22:27:02 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > On Mon, 7 Apr 2014 07:11:30 -0400 Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 7 Apr 2014 11:37:06 +1000 > > Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 20:56:24 -0400 Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Thanks for the feedback and for pulling this in anyway. I'll make sure > > > > to do all of that on subsequent pull requests. > > > > > > Also, please don't rebase what you have in linux-next before sending it to > > > Linus (without good reason). Especially if you then leave the linux-next > > > included branch as it was - since that may cause conflicts in my tree > > > (and so I notice the rebase). > > > > I don't think I did that though, did I? Both the branches I had in this > > case were based on 3.13-rc1. > > OK, so the base stayed the same, but you recommitted all the same patches > (I didn't check to see if the commit messages changed) which due to some > other change caused conflicts in linux-next today :-( Not really a > biggie, but generally, you really shouldn't rewrite your commits just > before sending them to Linus. > > > Now that Linus has pulled in the changes, am I OK to rebase the > > branches (or do a pull)? > > At this point, you should just reset your next included branch to be in > Linus' tree beyond where Linus merged your tree, then it will be > effectively empty (unless you then add some more patches on top - but at > this point those should only be fixes). > Ahh ok, I guess I *did* alter a commit message in my locks-3.15 branch and didn't propagate that to my linux-next branch. That probably threw off the commit IDs. The patches themselves should have been identical though. Sorry about that! In any case, I've gone ahead and reset my branch as you recommend and linux-next branch and will be more careful about that in the future. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
