From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99•com>
To: Russell King <rmk@arm•linux.org.uk>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb•de>, Joe Perches <joe@perches•com>,
Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic•net>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb•auug.org.au>,
linux-next@vger•kernel.org, lkml <linux-kernel@vger•kernel.org>,
Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@canonical•com>,
Jeff Ohlstein <johlstei@codeaurora•org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the msm tree with the arm tree
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:49:37 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1287514177.10071.51.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101019183448.GA11088@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 19:34 +0100, Russell King wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:03:26AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 15:18 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 19 October 2010, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > This could have been done:
> > > >
> > > > $ git show 08a610d9ef5394525b0328da0162d7b58c982cc4 | ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl --nogit | wc -l
> > > > 35
> > > >
> > > > Even then, using 35 CCs is generally silly.
> > > >
> > > > It might make some sense for a cover letter and a
> > > > patch series where the series made tree-wide changes
> > > > in multiple directories.
> > >
> > > Probably not even then: When a single mail header gets too long, you usually land
> > > in some spam filter and get hate mail from the list owners. The lkml limit is 1024
> > > characters (this may come from an official RFC, don't know), which is usually less
> > > than 35 recipients.
> >
> > Patches just shouldn't be this large.
>
> Patches get large. Sometimes they can't be sensibly broken up. We
> have to accept them as is sometimes. This is one of those occasions.
> See the example Nicolas gave you - it's no different.
>
> As for you saying that I'm the one getting excited about this - I'm not.
> I'm getting pissed off by how much discussion effort this trivial matter
> is taking and how much time it's wasting, which really isn't necessary.
> There's far better things to be done (such as testing) rather than taking
> hours to sort out what is basically a trivial merge issue.
>
> Now, you've said in your pull request:
>
> | Here is your pull request Russell. This has the patch which was part of
> | the conflict in MSM, "msm: allow uart to be conditionally disabled"..
> |
> | It's on top of v2.6.36-rc5, and it has one patch that is already in your
> | tree. It's "GIC: Dont disable INT in ack callback" .
> |
> | This pull request is exactly what I would send to Linus is the merge
> | window was open.
>
> As I'm merging it into a tree which does _not_ have the changes from
> Jeremy and Nicolas, what's this "the patch which was part of the
> conflict" and what's it going to do without Nicolas' changes?
Um , the patches I sent you are un-altered from what was originally in
my tree prior to the conflict.
I was just making note of the fact that a conflict in -next happened in
relation to that patch in my tree. I wasn't suggesting that my tree
changed at all.
> The point of dropping Jeremy and Nicolas' changes are to return to a
> state where things were before the troublesome change, so that the
> existing code works. Then Nicolas was going to take what is in my
> tree, and update the patches to take account of what's there.
yeah, that's what I'm assuming.. So I sent you exactly what I would have
sent Linus , i.e. doesn't take into account and troublesome patches of
any kind.
> If you're going to pre-empt that by fixing the stuff yourself, this
> whole exercise has been pointless, because it means that the code in
> your tree currently won't build without these other changes.
There's nothing fixed in my tree. I sent you a the pre-fixed tree. And
the troublesome patches will need to be conflict resolved even after my
tree is pulled.
> So at the moment I don't know whether or not I should pull your tree.
The tree should be what you wanted ..
Daniel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-19 18:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-17 23:35 linux-next: manual merge of the msm tree with the arm tree Stephen Rothwell
2010-10-18 0:02 ` Stephen Rothwell
2010-10-18 8:15 ` Russell King
2010-10-18 17:26 ` Daniel Walker
2010-10-18 18:20 ` Russell King
2010-10-18 18:46 ` Daniel Walker
2010-10-18 19:29 ` Nicolas Pitre
2010-10-18 20:12 ` Daniel Walker
2010-10-18 20:19 ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-10-18 20:37 ` Daniel Walker
2010-10-18 20:48 ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-10-18 21:05 ` Daniel Walker
2010-10-18 21:17 ` Nicolas Pitre
2010-10-18 21:35 ` Daniel Walker
2010-10-18 21:11 ` Nicolas Pitre
2010-10-18 20:58 ` Russell King
2010-10-18 21:29 ` Daniel Walker
2010-10-18 21:58 ` Russell King
2010-10-18 22:27 ` Daniel Walker
2010-10-18 22:35 ` Nicolas Pitre
2010-10-18 22:53 ` Joe Perches
2010-10-19 13:18 ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-10-19 17:03 ` Daniel Walker
2010-10-19 17:18 ` Nicolas Pitre
2010-10-19 18:42 ` Daniel Walker
2010-10-19 18:53 ` Russell King
2010-10-19 19:24 ` Daniel Walker
2010-10-19 18:34 ` Russell King
2010-10-19 18:49 ` Daniel Walker [this message]
2010-10-18 23:09 ` Daniel Walker
2010-10-18 23:32 ` Nicolas Pitre
2010-10-18 23:45 ` Daniel Walker
2010-10-19 2:47 ` Nicolas Pitre
2010-10-19 16:55 ` Daniel Walker
2010-10-18 20:19 ` Daniel Walker
2010-10-18 20:57 ` Nicolas Pitre
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-07-31 6:08 Stephen Rothwell
2011-01-31 2:14 Stephen Rothwell
2011-01-31 2:14 Stephen Rothwell
2011-02-02 18:29 ` David Brown
2011-02-02 19:43 ` Greg KH
2011-02-02 20:00 ` Russell King
2011-02-02 20:32 ` Greg KH
2011-02-02 20:44 ` Russell King
2011-02-02 21:47 ` Nicolas Pitre
2011-02-02 22:46 ` David Brown
2011-02-02 22:59 ` David Brown
2011-02-03 0:15 ` Nicolas Pitre
2011-02-04 17:17 ` Daniel Walker
2011-02-04 17:42 ` Russell King
2011-02-04 18:02 ` David Brown
2011-02-04 18:10 ` Daniel Walker
2011-02-04 19:40 ` Nicolas Pitre
2011-02-04 20:38 ` David Brown
2010-05-04 1:07 Stephen Rothwell
2010-05-04 16:42 ` Daniel Walker
2010-05-04 21:26 ` Stephen Rothwell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1287514177.10071.51.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com \
--to=dwalker@fifo99$(echo .)com \
--cc=arnd@arndb$(echo .)de \
--cc=jeremy.kerr@canonical$(echo .)com \
--cc=joe@perches$(echo .)com \
--cc=johlstei@codeaurora$(echo .)org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=nico@fluxnic$(echo .)net \
--cc=rmk@arm$(echo .)linux.org.uk \
--cc=sfr@canb$(echo .)auug.org.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox