linux-next: manual merge of the v4l-dvb tree
in [Kernel]
|
Prev: vmscan: page_check_references() check low order lumpy reclaim properly
Next: inotify: race use after free/double free in inotify inode marks
From: Stephen Rothwell on 12 May 2010 23:10 Hi Mauro, Today's linux-next merge of the v4l-dvb tree produced a mountain of conflicts so I have used the version from next-20100512 for today. Please either merge Linus' tree into yours or rebase you tree on top of Linus' tree. There are a large number of commits that are in your tree that have been rebased before being included into Linus' tree and this caused conflicts with further changes in your tree. Please consider changing your work flow so that you don't rebase things in your tree before sending them to Linus. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr(a)canb.auug.org.au http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab on 13 May 2010 01:20 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Mauro, > > Today's linux-next merge of the v4l-dvb tree produced a mountain of > conflicts so I have used the version from next-20100512 for today. > Please either merge Linus' tree into yours or rebase you tree on top of > Linus' tree. There are a large number of commits that are in your tree > that have been rebased before being included into Linus' tree and this > caused conflicts with further changes in your tree. I'll be pulling from Linus on my tree. I did it yesterday, after my last changes, but it seems that I've made a huge mistake... Several conflicts that I've already fixed reappeared. I suspect that I've merged it with an older temporary branch by mistake. Anyway, it is fixed, by simply going back to the last reflog before the error, and re-merging the new patches again. A pull from Linus didn't show any conflict. So, it should be now OK for you to merge. > Please consider changing your work flow so that you don't rebase things > in your tree before sending them to Linus. I'm already in process of changing my procedure. The problem is that I didn't find yet a perfect way to handle my tree. I'm getting some new ideas, and intend to implement them for 2.6.35 development cycle (linux-next for 2.6.36). -- Cheers, Mauro -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Stephen Rothwell on 13 May 2010 02:00
Hi Mauro, On Thu, 13 May 2010 02:18:33 -0300 Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab(a)infradead..org> wrote: > > I'll be pulling from Linus on my tree. I did it yesterday, after my last changes, > but it seems that I've made a huge mistake... Several conflicts that I've already > fixed reappeared. I suspect that I've merged it with an older temporary branch > by mistake. That explains it. > Anyway, it is fixed, by simply going back to the last reflog before the error, > and re-merging the new patches again. A pull from Linus didn't show any conflict. > > So, it should be now OK for you to merge. Excellent, thanks. > > Please consider changing your work flow so that you don't rebase things > > in your tree before sending them to Linus. > > I'm already in process of changing my procedure. The problem is that I didn't find > yet a perfect way to handle my tree. I'm getting some new ideas, and intend to implement > them for 2.6.35 development cycle (linux-next for 2.6.36). OK, good. The process doesn't have to be perfect ... ;-) -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr(a)canb.auug.org.au http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/ |