On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:26 PM, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 15:20:33 -0500 > >>> So you would only have to wait until my tree went in before >>> sending your pull request. >> >> So you would want me to rebase selinux/next on top of Linus' tree in >> the middle of the merge window? I'm sure that isn't what you meant, >> but that's how I keep reading the above ... which can't be right, >> because in my experience that's one way to piss off Linus. Help me >> understand what you are saying. > > I never said you rebase anything. I wonder where you get that from. As I said, I was just trying to figure out what you were suggesting. Your email was not very clear in my opinion. > I'm saying, you just defer your pull request until Linus takes my > networking tree in. > > No changes or rebasing of your tree is necessary whatsoever. You just > ask him to pull your tree as-is. > > Again, this is what other smaller subsystem trees do when they have a > situation like this. Which gets us back to what I originally suggested in my first email of this thread: linux-next carries the fixup patch and when we send the pull requests to Linus we mention this fixup/thread. For what it's worth, if you mention the potential merge conflict, and the fixup that Stephen provided, it shouldn't matter when the pull requests are sent to Linus; he's a smart guy, he'll merge things in the order he wants. I've seen more than a few people get burned by deferring pull requests, I don't intend to have SELinux, or audit for that matter, run into the same problem. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com -- 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
