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

From: Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 19:55:32 +1100

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.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    [email-masked]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/