Hi Tejun, On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 15:13:08 -0700 Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 09:05:40AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Anyways, I pulled master into wq/for-next and resolved it there, so it > > > shouldn't cause you any more trouble. > > > > Ah, OK, thanks. One small point, when you do a back merge like that, > > you should always put an explanation in the commit message for the merge. > > Oh, I do that for any permanent branches. for-next branches are > ephemeral (at least in my trees) so I usually don't bother. I do > compare against for-next when and after sending pull requests with > proper conflict descriptions, so things are not likely to slip through > there. Hmmm.... if it's gonna be helpful to you, I'd be happy to > describe merge conflicts and resolutions in for-next merges. Would > that be helpful? No, that's OK. I do wonder some times why some people have "ephemeral" -next branches, though? I guess, in your case, that you send your stuff to Linus in more than one pull request and have just combined them to reduce the conflicts for my benefit? Which is fine. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
pgpipu6rxGOOl.pgp
Description: PGP signature
