On 07/25/2012 07:30 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What is the right course in when a post-merge change is needed?
Just describe the issue and the required change. Than I can just do it
as part of the merge, and now the whole series is bisectable,
including the merge itself.
Here's a (fairly bad) example:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg192349.html
and the reason I call that a bad example is not because that's a bad
pull request, but simply that those are all real data conflicts, not
the more subtle kind of "it merges fine, but because new code
introduced uses an interface that changed, you need to do xyz".
Thanks, so noted. I guess if the merge gets more complex than something
easily described in an email, that implies that maintainers should do
more cross-coordination and maybe a merge tree.
What's the best way for libata to move forward, now that this hideous
merge has been pushed out to the Well Known libata branches? The
pre-jgarzik-merge commit you would have pulled is
dc7f71f486f4f5fa96f6dcf86833da020cde8a11 had my pull request been proper.
I can lop off the top 3 commits and force-update the libata-dev.git
branches, then send a new pull request -- but you have grumbled at that
sort of behavior in maintainer trees before too...
Jeff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
