* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Ingo, > > On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 09:10:21 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> 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. > > In general I agree. I have singled out these conflict resolutions because > they involve either files not obvious from the conflicts (newly introduced > or chunks of code moved between files), or chunks of code that are > introduced in one tree but need to be modified after the otheris merged. So > in that sense they are a heads up to Linus because they are only found after > you do the merge and then get a build failure (if you do the right builds). > > So they can be resolved by Linus after he merges the second tree or by the > original maintainer of one of the trees merging/cherrypicking (part of) the > other tree or waiting for Linus to merge the other tree and then do a merge > with Linus' tree. Conflict reminders are certainly useful - even for trivial commits. My comments mostly related to the part of your suggestion that subsystem maintainers may merge in Linus's tree before they send their pull request to Linus - which i dont agree with in the general case, for the aforementioned reasons. Thanks, 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
