Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756724Ab3G3BiN (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jul 2013 21:38:13 -0400 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:60019 "EHLO out1-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751402Ab3G3BiL (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jul 2013 21:38:11 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: sKLFU5bKer5lS3W5ISd2DvD3EEp06iBAPxS8wvP3dW9x 1375148289 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 18:38:08 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Arnd Bergmann , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tomas Winkler Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the char-misc tree with Linus' tree Message-ID: <20130730013808.GA5373@kroah.com> References: <20130729150129.76a9fab4023ee22c940b7920@canb.auug.org.au> <20130729192649.GA9191@kroah.com> <20130730102754.749949a5d53c54e4c6c72d53@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130730102754.749949a5d53c54e4c6c72d53@canb.auug.org.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2779 Lines: 59 On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:27:54AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Greg, > > On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 12:26:49 -0700 Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 03:01:29PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the char-misc tree got a conflict in > > > drivers/misc/mei/init.c between commit 99f22c4ef24c ("mei: don't have to > > > clean the state on power up") from Linus' tree and commit b950ac1dabfc > > > ("mei: don't get stuck in select during reset") from the char-misc tree. > > > > > > (Unrelated white space changes are a pest :-() > > > > > > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action > > > is required). > > > > Thanks, I've merged the char-misc-next branch into 3.11-rc3, so this > > merge problem should no longer be there. > > Unfortunately, I think this is exactly the sort of back merge that Linus > hates. He and I are quite capable of coping with relatively complex > merge conflicts, so ones like this are really not a problem (and "git > rerere" takes care of it once I have resolved it the first time). That > is why I added "no action is required" to my notification messages. > These messages are really more "this is what I did, please tell me if I > did something wrong", not "please fix this up" (I know this message from > me has changed over time - we can all learn, even us oldies :-)) > > Also, if you are doing a merge of fixes that you have submitted to > Linus, it is probably better to merge your fixes branch rather that > Linus' tree after he has merged it - that way you are not dragging > irrelevant stuff from Linus' tree into yours and complicating the git > history/bisecting so much. > > Of course, if you need something from Linus' tree that someone else put > there to continue development, then you need to back merge Linus' tree, > but after rc2 or 3 that should be rare. And, of course, such a back > merge needs a good changelog explaining exactly why it was done. I usually want those fixes from the rcs and merge at that point in time every other -rc release or so, just to make it much easier for me to test with, and to pick in the patches I've sent to Linus. Yes, I could just suck in my fixes branch, but I would be stuck with trees based on -rc1, which is almost always a pain to test with. I'm not doing "merges every week", and have been doing it this way for a few years now with no complaints. The -rc point in time is a good place to sync up with it seems. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/