Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the kunit-next tree got a conflict in:
Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/index.rst
between commit:
6c6213f4a29b ("Documentation: KUnit: Rewrite main page")
from the jc_docs tree and commit:
58b391d74630 ("Documentation: kunit: remove claims that kunit is a mocking framework")
from the kunit-next tree.
I fixed it up (I just used the former version) and can carry the fix as
necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any
non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer
when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider
cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any
particularly complex conflicts.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 9:33 PM Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kunit-next tree got a conflict in:
>
> Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/index.rst
>
> between commit:
>
> 6c6213f4a29b ("Documentation: KUnit: Rewrite main page")
>
> from the jc_docs tree and commit:
>
> 58b391d74630 ("Documentation: kunit: remove claims that kunit is a mocking framework")
>
> from the kunit-next tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I just used the former version) and can carry the fix as
Thanks for this.
Harinder's patch should supersede my small fixup patch.
It wasn't clear when Harinder's patches would land in the docs tree.
But it looks like my patch two files that Harinder's didn't, specifically:
Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/index.rst | 3 +--
Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/test.rst | 3 +--
Shuah, Brendan: I can send a new version of 58b391d74630 that only
updates those two files, if wanted.
Or we can go with Stephen's fix, which looks good to me.
> necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any
> non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer
> when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider
> cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any
> particularly complex conflicts.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 2:05 PM Daniel Latypov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 9:33 PM Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the kunit-next tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/index.rst
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > 6c6213f4a29b ("Documentation: KUnit: Rewrite main page")
> >
> > from the jc_docs tree and commit:
> >
> > 58b391d74630 ("Documentation: kunit: remove claims that kunit is a mocking framework")
> >
> > from the kunit-next tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (I just used the former version) and can carry the fix as
>
> Thanks for this.
>
> Harinder's patch should supersede my small fixup patch.
> It wasn't clear when Harinder's patches would land in the docs tree.
>
> But it looks like my patch two files that Harinder's didn't, specifically:
> Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/index.rst | 3 +--
> Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/test.rst | 3 +--
>
> Shuah, Brendan: I can send a new version of 58b391d74630 that only
> updates those two files, if wanted.
> Or we can go with Stephen's fix, which looks good to me.
I'm fine with Stephen's fix, and I am assuming that is the direction
that we already went - so probably the least likely to make waves.
So looks good to me.
Sorry about the delayed response. I was on vacation.
Cheers!
Hi all,
On Fri, 24 Dec 2021 16:32:56 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kunit-next tree got a conflict in:
>
> Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/index.rst
>
> between commit:
>
> 6c6213f4a29b ("Documentation: KUnit: Rewrite main page")
>
> from the jc_docs tree and commit:
>
> 58b391d74630 ("Documentation: kunit: remove claims that kunit is a mocking framework")
>
> from the kunit-next tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I just used the former version) and can carry the fix as
> necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any
> non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer
> when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider
> cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any
> particularly complex conflicts.
This is now a conflict between the jc_docs tree and Linus' tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell