Subject: Re: linux-next: current pending merge fix patches

From: Ingo Molnar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:01:30 +0100

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

> Hi Ingo,
> 
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 09:10:21 +0100 Ingo Molnar <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >
> > > This could also be taken as a reminder to the respective maintiners that 
> > > they may want to do a merge of your tree before asking you to pull theirs.
> > 
> > I dont think that's generally correct for trivial conflicts: it's better if 
> > Linus does the merge of a tree that is based in some stable tree.
> 
> In general I agree.  I have singled out these conflict resolutions because 
> they involve either files not obvious from the conflicts (newly introduced 
> or chunks of code moved between files), or chunks of code that are 
> introduced in one tree but need to be modified after the otheris merged.  So 
> in that sense they are a heads up to Linus because they are only found after 
> you do the merge and then get a build failure (if you do the right builds).
> 
> So they can be resolved by Linus after he merges the second tree or by the 
> original maintainer of one of the trees merging/cherrypicking (part of) the 
> other tree or waiting for Linus to merge the other tree and then do a merge 
> with Linus' tree.

Conflict reminders are certainly useful - even for trivial commits.

My comments mostly related to the part of your suggestion that subsystem 
maintainers may merge in Linus's tree before they send their pull request to 
Linus - which i dont agree with in the general case, for the aforementioned 
reasons.

Thanks,

	Ingo