On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 17:42 +0000, Russell King wrote: > So you tell me - do I take the p2v stuff out of public view tonight > because it's not stable, and therefore you don't even know about the > conflict? > > Or do I continue publishing the unstable changes so that people have > the ability to see what's going on in my tree and find potential > conflicts? > > I really don't care which - but I'll warn you that keeping changes > hidden will result in a reduction of patch quality, and much much > much less testing of those changes. And I won't care at all when you > complain that MSM's broken because of one of my patches. > > Exactly what would you prefer? I'm not really opposed to any of your objectives. What it sounds like is that you have a "stable" branch, and an "unstable" branch. Both branches are in linux-next , and we're seeing conflicts from the unstable one. Is that accurate? I think we can deal with the issues as long as you have one branch that you don't rebase, and things eventually move into that branch. So if we have a conflict then we can base our tree on your stable branch , and have confidence that your not rebasing it, or merge that into our tree. I think the problem is that when you say your rebase it's not clear if your rebasing all your branches, or if you only rebasing one unstable branch.. Daniel -- Sent by an consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum. -- 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
