Re: linux-next: manual merge of the renesas tree with the arm-soc tree

From: Mike Turquette <mturquette@linaro.org>
To: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
	Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"linux-next@vger.kernel.org" <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Boris BREZILLON <b.brezillon@overkiz.com>,
	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the renesas tree with the arm-soc tree
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 08:56:34 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140108165634.27803.31368@quantum> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52CA7AFB.9010208@atmel.com>

Quoting Nicolas Ferre (2014-01-06 01:44:27)
> On 04/01/2014 06:11, Olof Johansson :
> > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> wrote:
> >> On 16/12/2013 00:47, Stephen Rothwell :
> >>> Hi Simon,
> >>>
> >>> Today's linux-next merge of the renesas tree got a conflict in
> >>> drivers/clk/Makefile between commit 0ad6125b1579 ("clk: at91: add PMC
> >>> base support") from the arm-soc tree and commit 10cdfe9f327a ("clk:
> >>> shmobile: Add R-Car Gen2 clocks support") from the renesas tree.
> >>>
> >>> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
> >>> is required).
> >>
> >> Fine for me.
> > 
> > Simon, Nicolas,
> > 
> > <mini-rant>
> > 
> > While a very minor issue, this should have been altogether avoided
> > with a little more attention when applying patches. The Makefile is
> > sorted, and you've appended new lines to the end instead of in the
> > place they're supposed to go. Sure, others have done the same mistake
> > in a few places but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to keep it
> > sorted.
> > 
> > The very reason _to_ sort a Makefile is to avoid these needless
> > add-add conflicts when two people append to the same unsorted list.
> > 
> > Now I can't resolve it properly and move the entries when I do the
> > same merge (and get the same conflict), because that will cause a
> > third conflict for Stephen, and he's about to return from vacation and
> > is going to cuss at us if we cause too many new conflicts in one day.
> > :)
> > 
> > </mini-rant>
> > 
> > So, best choice is to keep the unsortedness now, and have Mike resort
> > his Makefile for us at the end of the merge window. And keep a little
> > closer eye on Makefile and Kconfig additions in the future. :)
> 
> Totally agree in keeping a Makefile sorted, when it is already sorted.
> What I recall having thought when I had seen this Makefile is: well this
> one must be of the "append your changes to the end" type...
> 
> Anyway be sure that I will pay attention to this.

The file used to be sorted. I've cleaned it up locally and will apply
the patch after I take in a few more pull requests.

Regards,
Mike

> 
> Bye,
> -- 
> Nicolas Ferre