On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 10:00 PM, Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > The following changes since commit 0c4c998690e5e31696404fa518022865fd9232d2: > > fix crash with sym->bb_target == NULL (2017-07-31 22:21:59 +0200) > > are available in the git repository at: > > git://github.com/lucvoo/sparse.git for-chris > > for you to fetch changes up to faad58bc8499e52ccf71da79a2ba46e2d928e33e: > > mark pseudo users as deleted instead of removing them (2017-08-08 03:46:26 +0200) There is slight issue with "for-chris". - Your "for-chris" is not fast forwardable from master. - Your "for-chris" does not contain "take comma expr in account for constant value" "fix: give a type to bad cond expr with known condition" Which I already apply in sparse-next. When I rebase spase-next, I will use your "for-chris" as base. It will end up rebase the above two changes for you. Which you will complain. I am not falling for that trap :-) Let me repeat. The "for-chris" branch should: 1. fast forwardable from master 2. contain *all* of the patches from you that want me to pull. "for-chris" doesn't need to be always fast forward-able to the last "for-chris" point. If you need to fix the "for-chris" for some v4-> v5. Go ahead and rebase the "for-chris" as you like. It is your call how to make "for-chris" stable the way you like. The implications is that. You practically define the stable part of the master branch. My sparse-next will always use your "for-chris" as base. I think that will be the best way for our current development model. It give you to control the stable point on master, it give me the flexibility to rebase spase-next. Chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
