Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 25 Jan 2021 11:06:13 +0900
From:   Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the openrisc tree with Linus' tree
Message-ID: <20210125020613.GT2002709@lianli.shorne-pla.net>
References: <20210125090506.35337fa2@canb.auug.org.au>
 <20210125010446.GS2002709@lianli.shorne-pla.net>
 <20210125124746.40e2638d@canb.auug.org.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210125124746.40e2638d@canb.auug.org.au>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 12:47:46PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Stafford,
> 
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:04:46 +0900 Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Thank's I knew about this conflict but I was not sure the best way to handle, I
> > was/am going to rebase the openrisc/for-next branch onto 5.11-rc5 once released.
> > I will resolve the conflict during the rebase so you should be able to drop the
> > conflict patch after that.
> 
> Its a pretty trivial conflict, so I wouldn't do the rebase just for this.

Alright, I will not rebase.

> > The issue is I had a fix that went straight to 5.11.  Should I usually put these
> > kind of fixes on my for-next and my fixes branches in parallel, that way I can
> > resolve conflicts on for-next before hand?
> 
> I notice that the version in Linus' tree was merged from a separate
> branch.  The easiest that to do is for you to merge that same branch
> into your for-next branch - that way you only get your own changes, not
> any other stuff that might be in Linus' tree.
> 
> > I don't usually do that as in my mind for next is for 5.12 and fixes for 5.11 go
> > straight to 5.11.  Also, I don't like putting the same patch in 2 queues.  But
> > if I got any advice on how to avoid this in the future it would be appreciated.
> 
> Like I said, just merge your fixes branch into you for-next branch
> when/if you think the fixes are important for further development, or
> the conflicts become to great.

That sounds like a good idea.  Let me do that.

> I can also add you fixes branch to linux-next if you like (I already
> have 86 other "fixes" branches).

I think that should be alright for now, I'll maintain merging the fixes branch
myself when I think it's needed.

Thank you,

-Stafford