Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the msm tree with the arm tree

From: Daniel Walker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 10:10:55 -0800

On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 17:42 +0000, Russell King wrote:
> So you tell me - do I take the p2v stuff out of public view tonight
> because it's not stable, and therefore you don't even know about the
> conflict?
> 
> Or do I continue publishing the unstable changes so that people have
> the ability to see what's going on in my tree and find potential
> conflicts?
> 
> I really don't care which - but I'll warn you that keeping changes
> hidden will result in a reduction of patch quality, and much much
> much less testing of those changes.  And I won't care at all when you
> complain that MSM's broken because of one of my patches.
> 
> Exactly what would you prefer? 

I'm not really opposed to any of your objectives. What it sounds like is
that you have a "stable" branch, and an "unstable" branch. Both branches
are in linux-next , and we're seeing conflicts from the unstable one. Is
that accurate?

I think we can deal with the issues as long as you have one branch that
you don't rebase, and things eventually move into that branch. So if we
have a conflict then we can base our tree on your stable branch , and
have confidence that your not rebasing it, or merge that into our tree.

I think the problem is that when you say your rebase it's not clear if
your rebasing all your branches, or if you only rebasing one unstable
branch..

Daniel

-- 
Sent by an consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora
Forum.