On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 06:21:57PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote: > There's no "preferred" approach really. I try to warn about cases like > this early because the response rates to Greg's "FAILED" email seem to > be low - by the time they are sent out people are done with that code > and have moved on. > > In this scenario, for exmaple, this patch would not apply to any stable > tree because it depends on a previous patch in this series that was not > tagged for stable. My hopes are that if I warn you about this early you > can work around this (for example, by marking that prior patch for > stable as well) so you won't need to deal with this patch again in a few > weeks. > > There's no need to change anything about your flow if it works for you. Ok, I see. Yeah, it is just how I organize my work. Rather solve the patch dependency sudoku one time than two times. When I maintain a subsystem I've thought that it is my responsibility to always do that and not wait someone else to do it for me :-) That is the responsibility part of the equation when you have the power to decide what gets in. Right now I have two failed merges in my queue that I plan to take care of them next week. > Thanks, > Sasha /Jarkko
