On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi all, > > Christmas has intervened! ÂToday's linux-next (I was putting it together > in my spare moments) took too long, so it is not being released, sorry. > > The next release of linux-next will be Dec 27, or 28 (my time). ÂHave a > nice break and relax. Â:-) > > -- > Cheers, > Stephen Rothwell          Âsfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/ > Personally, I have no problems w/o a linux-next (next-20101223) release for today. Today, you posted a lot of emails with merge problems from diverse trees, beginning with vfs-scale-working. Last night, I tried to merge rest-of-Linux-2.6.37-rc7 on top of linux-next (next-20101221), fixed the conflicts manually. Then I tried to pull-in vfs-scale-working and I guess I have solved the merge-problems correct, but my build had several errors. So, I need more exercise :-). Now, to my questions: [1] Linux-next tree as base? Why are all those for-next/linux-next sub-trees not based/rebased on linux-next and prepared for you as *the* main co-ordinator of linux-next? Funny, there are strange names around like "test" for linux-acpi-2.6 for example - is this a "for-next" tree or not? I mean the nomenclature seems not to be consistent when I look over the sub-tress. Then submaintainers have branches like (what I prefer) "for-linus" (aka upstream, for-2.6.37) or mostly "for-next" (or "linux-next", aka for-2.6.38) within a single (same) GIT repository. Others prefer two separated repos: For example net-2.6 -> upstream/for-2.6.37 and net-next-2.6 -> linux-next/for-2.6.38. Surely, it depends on the sub-tree and the interaction with other sub-trees. Can't all submaintainers use "for-linus" (upstream-fixes) and "for-next" (new code for upcoming release)? That's leading to my next question: Ideal/optimal work-flow in merging tress on top of "parent". Here an example for a "wise" dependency chain for pulls/merges: 1. net-2.6 -> 2. wireless-2.6 -> 3. net-next-2.6 -> 4. wireless-next-2.6 So John Linville (maintainer of linux-wireless) and Dave Miller (maintainer of net-2.6) are really working together (I missed that John also pulls in bluetooth sub-tree). The work (pull-requests) are documented by emails to both MLs. For me, it seemd other sub-trees which interact or overlap are not well co-ordinated (I have block-2.6, vfs-2.6 and *-fs in mind) So, this needs a bit of an analysis/discussion which would help to reduce this merge f-ups (I hope). [2] Merge process? Is this a script you are using? Is there a standard work-flow you follow? tree1, then tree2, then tree3... Is this always the same procedure? Does a script exist or you do that manually? Do you use "brain-power" or which strategies do you perform to solve merge conflicts? Which help can give git tool on this? My 0.02EUR. - Sedat - -- 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
