* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This could also be taken as a reminder to the respective maintiners that > they may want to do a merge of your tree before asking you to pull theirs. I dont think that's generally correct for trivial conflicts: it's better if Linus does the merge of a tree that is based in some stable tree. It causes slightly messier criss-cross history: there will be the back-merge commit plus the inevitable merge commit from Linus. It also makes bisection a bit messier: For example when bisecting i generally consider the 'boundary' of where Linus pulls as a 'known point of stability': i.e. the 'subsystem side' is expected to be well-tested and if there's a problem on that side, it's that subsystem's domain. "Linus's side", during the merge window, is a rolling tree of many freshly merged trees, which inevitably piles up a few problems. So it's IMO somewhat better to keep that boundary and not push out Linus's side into subsystem trees: which then may merge a few new patches after having merged Linus's tree, intermixing it all into a non-bisectable combination. Plus there's also an indirect effect: it keeps people from merging back Linus's tree all the time. So i'd argue to not backmerge during the merge window (and i have stopped doing that myself a few cycles ago, and it clearly helped things) - but in any case it's certainly no big deal and up to Linus i guess. Ingo -- 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
