Hi Al, On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 03:44:17 +0000 Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Actually, I'd cheerfully rebased that sucker (to e.g. write_inode2); it has > grown a trivial conflict with mainline after one of gfs2 merges and it's > annoying to fix it up after each for-next rebase. > > So I'd rather put a rebased variant and switched the for-next to using that, > if people who'd pulled it already are OK with that. Just out of interest, is there some reason you didn't just merge Linus' tree (or the subset that caused the conflict) into the write-inode branch. That would have meant that you still had a nonrebasing branch that others could use. Now anyone who has merged your write_inode branch needs to rebuild their trees using you new write-rebase2 branch or risk causing conflicts in linux-next or Linus' tree when their tree's are merged. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Attachment:
pgpewuGumTz4f.pgp
Description: PGP signature
