On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 06:33:43AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 6:24 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The rule I was applying (which I think is the same as Stephen applies) > > is that I'd fix anything that was definitely the result of a merge issue > > (like the build failure in misc due to a sysfs API change in the sysfs > > tree) but not anything that was just plain broken in the tree in > > isolation. > Some of those might still make sense, but as many as possible of them > should be pushed down into the trees where they belong, even if > they're strictly not needed there (as long as they don't break the > standalone tree, of course). Right, this is strictly for issues generated as a result of a change in one tree that cause an issue when merged with another tree like adding a user of an API in one tree that has had an incompatible change in another.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
