Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > OK, I see. Firstly, I will rebase my for-next as per your suggestion. As > you > > know, I just wanted to avoid known conflicts with driver-core tree. > > Please, in general you should *not* rebase on top of other peoples OK, I will remember. And as a note, I didn't 'rebase' on top of other tree just 'merge' in the case of having dependency with others and of course if that is _really_ required. But we know, if the merged tree is rebased, something wrong will happen :( > trees either. What's the conflict and why do you need that other tree > in the first place? > The driver-core tree changed usage(?) of sysdev_class and touched some files and the changed files have been merged into one file for some reason without driver-core's changes in samsung tree. So I just wanted to avoid the conflicts. Linus, how should/can I do in this case? Thanks. Best regards, Kgene. -- Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Senior Engineer, SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. -- 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
