Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the sched tree

From: Ingo Molnar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 08:08:14 +0200

* Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Ingo,
> 
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 07:54:02 +0200 Ingo Molnar <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >
> > You should be able to check whether we both integrated the conflict the 
> > same way via checking tip/auto-latest, which is the integration of all 
> > the auto branches that come from -tip.
> > 
> > All the integration branches of -tip are pushed out at once so 
> > tip/auto-latest always gives a hint about how to integrate two -tip 
> > derived topic branches, tip/auto-latest always gives an answer. [ which 
> > might at times be wrong so it never hurts to double check :-) Note: 
> > auto-latest also includes some non-linux-next topics - but they dont 
> > affect the scheduler usually. ]
> 
> Good to know, I will fetch it when necessary to check my work.

we could also add tip/auto-next, which would be the integration of 
strictly the topics that go towards linux-next.

You probably dont want to use it for linux-next because it's too large 
hence you'd lose flexibility in shaping the ordering of trees (and lose 
flexibility in excluding broken trees and iterating them out of sync) - 
but it would be useful for the normal case and it might also speed up / 
strengthen your conflict resolution workflow.

	Ingo