On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 21:32 -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 01/15/2013 08:49 PM, Tony Prisk wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 14:14 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Today's linux-next merge of the tegra tree got a conflict in
> >> drivers/clocksource/Makefile between commit ff7ec345f0ec ("timer: vt8500:
> >> Move timer code to drivers/clocksource") from the arm-soc tree and commit
> >> ac0fd9eca3ba ("ARM: tegra: move timer.c to drivers/clocksource/") from
> >> the tegra tree.
> >>
> >> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
> >> is required).
> >>
> >
> > I don't know about everyone else, but I feel the preference should be to
> > keep things alphabetized where possible to help avoid with merge
> > conflicts later on. This is always a problem when we start tacking
> > things on the end of lists.
> >
> > I realise this Kconfig is not alphabetized anyway, but it's never too
> > early to start on the 'right' path.
>
> Sounds like a good idea, but the issue is: When to do the initial sort
> so it doesn't conflict with all the adds in a kernel cycle... Post and
> immediately commit a new patch near the end of the merge window?
Given that the maintainer can quite safely do the patch (sorry
maintainers), I don't see any reason why it couldn't be done at the
point where they stop accepting patches for the merge-window. Once the
patches are stopped, sort the list in one last patch.
It makes sense to get it done in this window if possible as the Kconfig
will only get bigger as time goes on, making sorting it more time
consuming.
Regards
Tony P
--
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
