Hi Jean, On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:16:47 +0200 Jean Delvare <khali@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > OK, thanks for the clarification. I did not notice Greg had split some > of his trees that way. Makes sense. > > > It you decide to leave that patch out and > > change the dependency, please let me know as I will then have to merge > > your tree after Greg's (it is currently earlier. > > Regardless of what I do, I think it would make sense to merge > driver-core before driver subsystem trees. I would insert if before pci. I merge driver-core near the end because it often has API changes in it and Linus suggested that the pain of API changes should be with the changer. > I am also surprised that I would have to tell you. What is the purpose > of the NEXT_BASE tag if you do not check for dependencies automatically? I use the tag to choose the base when I import the quilt series into git. So far I have not needed to automate the ordering of the imports. > Anyway, if you say git can deal with duplicate patches OK, then I think > I'll simply re-add the patch on my end. But I do not have a strong > opinion on this either, so if you prefer clean dependencies and > ordering without duplicate patches, it is just as easy for me to leave > the redundant patch out and restore the NEXT_BASE tag. I prefer less dependencies (so you could put the patch back in), however, that means if Greg changes the patch, then we will have two slightly different versions to merge. I can cope with that as well. Just readd the patch :-) -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Attachment:
pgpOkJEmKKVFr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
