Return-path: Received: from mga07.intel.com ([134.134.136.100]:29518 "EHLO mga07.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751348AbdJLS2F (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Oct 2017 14:28:05 -0400 Message-ID: <1507832866.5497.2.camel@intel.com> (sfid-20171012_202852_766692_A2A95FF7) Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the wireless-drivers-next tree with the wireless-drivers tree From: Luciano Coelho To: Mark Brown Cc: Kalle Valo , Chaya Rachel Ivgi , Shahar S Matityahu , Wireless , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 21:27:46 +0300 In-Reply-To: <20171012182114.fdeiv67ebx7c63te@sirena.co.uk> References: <20171012172512.tlsdjhppfz2hu4vr@sirena.co.uk> <1507832196.5497.1.camel@intel.com> <20171012182114.fdeiv67ebx7c63te@sirena.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 19:21 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 09:16:36PM +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > > This is weird... The previous conflict was the exact opposite of > > this. > > 44fd09 came in from wireless-drivers and dd05f9 came from wireless- > > drivers-next. I don't understand why it is saying the opposite > > here... > > I may have confused the trees when I was pasting things in, the > commits > are filled in by hand. Ah, okay. But still, if the same patches conflicted twice, why wasn't there only one occurrence with both conflicts at once? -- Luca.