From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luca Coelho Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the wireless-drivers-next tree with the wireless-drivers tree Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 21:50:51 +0300 Message-ID: <1507834251.5497.7.camel@coelho.fi> References: <20171012172512.tlsdjhppfz2hu4vr@sirena.co.uk> <1507832196.5497.1.camel@intel.com> <20171012182114.fdeiv67ebx7c63te@sirena.co.uk> <1507832866.5497.2.camel@intel.com> <20171012183505.oo77lgdbmqjevsuo@sirena.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from paleale.coelho.fi ([176.9.41.70]:52916 "EHLO farmhouse.coelho.fi" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751067AbdJLSu5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Oct 2017 14:50:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20171012183505.oo77lgdbmqjevsuo@sirena.co.uk> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Mark Brown Cc: Kalle Valo , Chaya Rachel Ivgi , Shahar S Matityahu , Wireless , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 19:35 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 09:27:46PM +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 19:21 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > I may have confused the trees when I was pasting things in, the > > > commits > > > are filled in by hand. > > > > Ah, okay. But still, if the same patches conflicted twice, why > > wasn't > > there only one occurrence with both conflicts at once? > > With trees like this that don't coordinate with their fixes branch > there > are frequently multiple conflicts introduced so I generally report > things file by file without even looking at the new ones. Sorry for the trouble. But how do you suggest that we "coordinate our fixes branch"? Merge fixes into the main tree? -- Luca.