On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 22:47 -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Daniel Walker wrote: > > > I can say that I know for a fact that people don't read every patch, or > > every email, or keep track of every single thread. I don't think it's > > reasonable to expect people to do that. there's too many email, too many > > threads, too many discussions etc .. > > I'm not saying that you should keep track of every threads. But you > should at least pay attention to what thread is being discussed, simply > by looking at the subject line. Any good MUA will let you sort emails > and collapse them into thread view. And scoring those incoming emails > with "arch/arm/mach-msm" for example is a quick way for you to be > noticed when a patch might be changing something in your area. Tools > are there for you. AFAIK before this thread, I should get CC'd when you modify me tree.. Maybe I'll setup some tools _now_ .. > > This discussion isn't really about that. It's not about people reading > > every single patch, which we know they don't do. This is about conflicts > > in -next. > > Glad to get back to the original issue. > > > These patches caused conflicts in -next .. What more could I have done > > to prevent conflicts coming from another tree and patches that appear > > not to effect me? Even if I read all the patches, and threads, it still > > seems unreasonable to expect maintainers to predict conflicts not coming > > from their own tree's. > > In this particular case, Stephen did fix the trivial merge conflict. > Most probably Linus could have done the same. There is nothing you > needed to do in that case. Or you could have waited until RMK's tree > hits mainline, then you merge that, fixing the issue within that merge, > before asking Linus to pull. > > And if the merge in linux-next turned out not to be that trivial, or you > have new machine entries in your tree that failed to compile due to the > missing fixup, well that's fine too because that's _exactly_ what the > purpose of the linux-next tree is: finding issues like this before the > real merge in Linus' tree. So in this case the system did work: the > conflict was identified by the tool and you were notified. > > And the simplest solution to this is simply to merge your stuff into > RMK's tree in this case, so the generic change affecting all ARM > machines will cover yours as well. Incidentally that's what has been > asked of you. > > See? Nothing to really get excited about. Am I excited? Russell is the one getting excited .. I was the one trying to correct the issues , so Linus doesn't have to deal with it. Daniel -- 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
