On Mon, 25 Oct 2021, Pavel Machek wrote: > > In other words: could you please elaborate what exact issue are you trying > > to avoid by not providing your Acked-by: and letting it go through hid.git > > with all the rest of the code depending on it? > > I'm trying to avoid merge conflict. What's wrong with this kind of conflict? That's what linux-next is for; if there is a conflict, we'll be notified and if needed and we could indicate this to Linus during merge window. The trivial ones he resolves without any issues. And we'll know exactly what kind of conflict (if any at all) is there beforehand from linux-next. > I believe open-coding string for a while is acceptable price to pay for > that, and I'd prefer that solution. I don't. It's a mess. If you'd then for some reason change your mind on the last minute and did the numbering differently in your tree, it will go by unnoticed, while when the real conflict happens, it'll be a clear sign that there is a thing to resolve. Conflict is not a bad thing per se that needs to be avoided at all costs. Conflict clearly shows the dependency between the trees and is trivially resolved. > If you can promise that no conflicts or other problems will happen for > either me or Linus... Linus doesn't care about this kind of hypothetical conflict if there is a reason for it, and he resolves them on a daily basis, just check the git history. > go ahead and merge the patch. Can I take this as your Acked-by: then, so that I can finally apply it and get the needed linux-next coverage before merge window opens? -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs
