On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 01:44:33PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Russell King <rmk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:56:40PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > Look into the fine conflict report Russell: it conflicts with
> > > *Linus's* tree, because it's based off some random
> > > barely-beyond-rc1 development window -rc3 base. Even at the
> > > commit date of Feb 27 we had a more stable base tree available -
> > > and especially when you pulled it, several weeks down the line,
> > > -rc3 was not a defensible base for the integrated result.
> >
> > I'm not going to ask someone to rebase their patches after
> > they've been fully tested on a set of platforms. [...]
>
> That's a new argument which might be a valid concern in general
> *if you make that decision when you pull the tree* - but you
> should admit that you werent even aware of the conflict and of
> the root cause behind it, let alone be in the position to
> consider whether a rebase is justified in that case ...
No Ingo. I was aware of the conflict, because when I merged it into
my test tree, I got that conflict and fixed it up myself before I
tested the frigging thing.
> So I think you are just making this up on the fly.
If you think that, we have nothing further to discuss. But I know
I'm right, because:
commit e3507976ee7ad0a58fa68ce919a7acfcfec28e3b
Merge: 4c17fe7 8cee1aa
Author: Russell King <rmk+kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu Mar 8 09:51:31 2012 +0000
Merge branch 'intr-ctxsw' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/cmarinas/linux
Conflicts:
kernel/sched/core.c
http://ftp.arm.linux.org.uk/git/?p=linux-next.git;a=commitdiff;h=e350797
(which is _not_ in a public branch, and is _only_ accessible via knowing
the commit id.)
Oh look, March 8th. Oh, that's last Thursday. Oh, maybe I did merge
it a while back after all, maybe I'm not making this crap up. Maybe
I did know about the conflict but didn't think anything of it because
it was soo trivial.
> Instead you first pushed back on *me*, then you claimed that you
> are not responsible for what you pull, then you started zapping
No I did not. What I said was that I'm not responsible for the points
at which people choose to base their patches, which is something entirely
different. Unlike you, I have _no_ _problem_ with pulling work based on
_any_ -rc, or indeed any commit whatsoever - provided it's been tested
and it merges relatively cleanly with the branch I'm pulling it into.
> patches and claiming that you will never pull them again,
> blaming it all on me.
I'm only blaming this thread on you, precisely because you're making a
mountain out of a mole hill. There's no problem here. Really. At all.
You're just blowing it out of all proportion making it into some huge big
issue. _That_ alone is the whole reason why I've dropped Catalins patches.
I don't want to be subjected to your rants over this. Instead, _you_ can
deal with this patch set and deal with the other conflicts which git can
resolve automatically.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:
--
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
