On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 10:16:26AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > 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. Branch in question still doesn't exist; that was a question, not a description of what I've already done. I guess I can do what you describe, but... Yuck. Multiple merges from mainline can create one hell of a mess down the road. I had to deal with results of exactly that when dwmw2 had dumped the audit tree into my lap and it had been a huge mess that took quite a while to untangle ;-/ The same goes for modifications hidden in merge commit, BTW. I know that Linus seems to be OK with that kind of thing, but... every time I run into that is when some change is not to be found in git log -p ;-/ Oh, well... I'll probably do that merge of mainline back into write_inode and try hard to avoid anything similar in the next cycles. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
