Hi Mark,
On 10/10/07, Mark M. Hoffman <mhoffman at lightlink.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone:
>
> > On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 21:27:35 -0700, Juerg Haefliger wrote:
> > > 3rd iteration of the patch:
> > > - fixed header comment
> > > - replaced dme1737_update_device with dev_get_drvdata in show_name
> > > - replaced class_dev with hwmon_dev
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> No, you didn't do that in this patch. You prepared this patch against a tree
> in which this had been done... even though the first two patches in your series
> were not prepared that way. Git makes this fairly easy for me to deal with,
> actually, but I shouldn't have to. More on that later.
Hmm... Yes I did prepare it against a tree in which this has been done
*and* I replaced all occurrences of class_dev in my new code.
> NOTE TO ALL HWMON DRIVER AUTHORS:
>
> If you have multiple patches in a series, make sure that they are all prepared
> against the same base version and that they can be applied in order. Also,
> please give me some indication of what that base version is, roughly. If you
> use git ('format-patch') that info is automatically included. If you use quilt,
> you'll have to tell me what it is. If you use bare diff, just give your trees
> meaningful names (e.g. v2.6.23-rc4 vs. v2.6.23-rc4.orig).
>
> And, I *don't* particularly care what the base version is. I just don't want
> to have to *guess*.
OK, I'll try to remember to include this information in future patches.
> So back to Juerg's series... it would be better for all three patches to apply
> against e.g. v2.6.23-rc6. Then I would have just branched with that as a base,
> committed the whole series, and then merged the whole branch. That way, the
> patches would have gone into the repo exactly as Juerg sent them to me, in that
> exact order. Pre-merge, the code is exactly as he tested it. Post-merge, if
> I screwed it up, it's obviously my fault.
>
>
> ------------------o--o--o <- Juerg's 3 patches
> / \
> / o-(etc)-o--o--o <- merge results
> / / ^
> -o--o--o--o-(etc)-o--o hwmon.testing
> ^ ^
> v2.6.23-rc6 v2.6.23
>
> Contrast with what actually happened here:
>
> The first two patches applied cleanly to v2.6.23 (a guess on my part - not
> specified in the patch itself). The third one didn't, because it presumed the
> class_dev -> hwmon_dev change. Really, I don't know the base of this patch,
> except that it seemed to include enough of the Tony Jones patch to require it
> as an ancestor.
The base for the 3rd patch was hwmon-2.6/testing.
>
> ------------------o--o <- Juerg's 1,2 of 3
> / \
> / o-(etc)-o--o----------o <- Juerg's 3 of 3
> / / ^ ^
> -o--o--o--o-(etc)-o--o merge hwmon.testing
> ^ ^
> v2.6.23-rc6 v2.6.23
>
> (If you clone my repo with git, you can run gitk to see the same diagram with
> actual graphics instead of ASCII art. [And it would be vertical, instead of
> horizontal, but I digress.])
>
> That's unsound for a couple of reasons:
>
> 1) Whatever Juerg did to create a base for the 3rd patch, I had to recreate.
> I.e. he must have done a merge by hand to even generate the 3rd patch.
No manual merge on my part. hwmon-2.6/testing was the base.
> 2) I might have done (1) differently than he did.
>
> So now I would like to know if the resulting drivers/hwmon/dme1737.c in my
> testing branch is the same as what you (Juerg) actually intended and tested.
Tried that but didn't succeed. I did a fresh git-clone
hwmon-2.6/testing but what I got for the dme1737 is old. It doesn't
include any of the 3 patches at all. At least I'm finally at a point
where I can say that I'll stay away from git in the future :-)
Anyways, can you tell me what I need to do to verify everything is
fine?
> Juerg: I don't mean to pick on you. Others have done this too (Hi Hans!),
> even with merge conflicts from patches that aren't in any tree I know about
> (Hi Darrick!) ;)
Yes, I can fully understand your point. It didn't cross my mind what
the implications will be if the patches in a series have different
bases.
> Basically, whatever tree you guys use to start a patch series, keep using that
> one until the series is done. If I have to resolve conflicts to merge the
> whole series, that's fine - it's my "job" now. ;) But I shouldn't need to merge
> midway through a series and guess at the ancestry of each patch in it.
Thanks for setting me straight and sorry for the troubles I caused.
...juerg
> Thanks & regards,
>
> --
> Mark M. Hoffman
> mhoffman at lightlink.com
>
>
