+++ Will Deacon [17/09/19 19:16 +0100]:
Hi Jessica,
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 08:01:36PM +0200, Jessica Yu wrote:
Yikes, I did not catch Stephen Rothwell's email about pausing the
linux-next releases from Sept 5 until Sept 30
(https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/20190904233443.3f73c46b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/).
The modules-next namespace patches have been in since last Tuesday,
and my original plan was for them to catch at least a week of
linux-next time before sending the pull request. :-/ But that did not
happen due to the above.
So Linus, in light of the above realization, I'd say at this time - I
will still formally send a pull request with the merge conflicts
resolved with either solution #2 or #3, but merge at your own
discretion, it's fine to delay to the following release if you're
uncomfortable.
FWIW, when I've run into unexpected merge conflicts with other trees in the
past, I've found that it's usually sufficient just to include the resolution
as an inline diff in the pull request, rather than try to munge the tree
with merges or rebases. Linus is pretty good at figuring it out, and with a
resolution to compare with, the damage is limited. The downside of the merge
is that it's fiddly to extract the changes and see what's actually being
pulled.
Also, it's not like the kbuild stuff has been in -next for ages, so this
would've been a late and messy conflict regardless.
Hi Will!
Thanks a lot for the advice :-) The inline diff sounds like a good
idea. This is I believe only the second tree conflict I've encountered
so far so the tips are much appreciated.
Jessica
