Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760179AbYBLFSV (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:18:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752279AbYBLFSH (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:18:07 -0500 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:34666 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752378AbYBLFSF (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:18:05 -0500 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:17:51 -0800 From: Arjan van de Ven To: Greg KH Cc: Stephen Rothwell , LKML , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Linus Subject: Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-)) Message-ID: <20080211211751.3e265754@laptopd505.fenrus.org> In-Reply-To: <20080212044314.GA4888@kroah.com> References: <20080212120208.f7168a91.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20080212042133.GA4625@kroah.com> <20080211203146.3d28d1a0@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20080212044314.GA4888@kroah.com> Organization: Intel X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.2.0 (GTK+ 2.12.5; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2430 Lines: 54 On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:43:14 -0800 Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 08:31:46PM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:21:33 -0800 > > Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > > > The maintainer will be notified. I hope to provide some clue > > > > as to what the conflict is with, but probably not initially. > > > > > > > > I will attempt to build the tree between each merge (and a > > > > failed build will again cause the offending tree to be dropped). > > > > > > This is going to get really interesting, especially when (not if) > > > we do more global api changes. Look at the last round of kobject > > > changes. That touched a lot of different places, and other trees > > > ended up not building because of it, because I changed apis and > > > they had added new code based on the old apis. > > > > > > I think the only way to fix this is not going to just "drop the > > > tree" like you are suggesting, but to let both people know (the > > > person who caused the change, and the person who's tree broke > > > after the merge), and then either add a "fixup patch" for the > > > build like Andrew has been doing, or disabling something from the > > > build section. > > > > > > > in my experience, the only chance you have is doing API changes as > > first in the set of changes, and then hoping (making) all other > > trees use the new APIs. Any other order just turns into an > > impossible mismash. > > I agree, and that's what I do. > > The problem is, the API change is still in my tree. So, if for > example, the IB tree goes and adds some new functionality before my > API changes have landed, they need to use the "old" API in order for > them to be able to test and build things on their own. Then, when > the -next tree merges everything together, the IB tree breaks the > build, not my driver tree. > > It's those "who goes first" type things that end up being the cause > of a lot of Andrew's headaches I think :) > this is why you need specific trees for just the API change, and these need to EXPLICITLY go first before EVERYTHING ELSE. Yes this needs a bit of coordination, but it's the only way. -- 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/