linux-next: manual merge of the jc_docs tree with the kbuild tree

linux-next: manual merge of the jc_docs tree with the kbuild tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Jonathan,

Today's linux-next merge of the jc_docs tree got a conflict in:

  scripts/kernel-doc-xml-ref

between commit:

  cb77f0d623ff ("scripts: Switch to more portable Perl shebang")

from the kbuild tree and commit:

  52b3f239bb69 ("Docs: clean up some DocBook loose ends")

from the jc_docs tree.

I fixed it up (the latter removed the file, so I did that) and can
carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is
concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your
upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging.  You may
also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting
tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the jc_docs tree with the kbuild tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi all,

With the merge window opening, just a reminder that this conflict still
exists.

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 11:13:31 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the jc_docs tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   scripts/kernel-doc-xml-ref
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   cb77f0d623ff ("scripts: Switch to more portable Perl shebang")
> 
> from the kbuild tree and commit:
> 
>   52b3f239bb69 ("Docs: clean up some DocBook loose ends")
> 
> from the jc_docs tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (the latter removed the file, so I did that) and can
> carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is
> concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your
> upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging.  You may
> also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting
> tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the jc_docs tree with the kbuild tree

[Kamil Rytarowski]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1085 bytes --]

Hello,

Am I expected to do it myself and resend a new patch?

On 03.07.2017 04:58, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> With the merge window opening, just a reminder that this conflict still
> exists.
> 
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 11:13:31 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the jc_docs tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>   scripts/kernel-doc-xml-ref
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>   cb77f0d623ff ("scripts: Switch to more portable Perl shebang")
>>
>> from the kbuild tree and commit:
>>
>>   52b3f239bb69 ("Docs: clean up some DocBook loose ends")
>>
>> from the jc_docs tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (the latter removed the file, so I did that) and can
>> carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is
>> concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your
>> upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging.  You may
>> also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting
>> tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts.
> 



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the jc_docs tree with the kbuild tree

[Jonathan Corbet]

On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 18:43:32 +0200
Kamil Rytarowski <n54@gmx.com> wrote:

> Am I expected to do it myself and resend a new patch?
> 
No, there should be no need for that.  I've already mentioned the issue
in my pull request; if the same happens on the kbuild side, Linus will
not have a hard time figuring out what to do.

jon

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the jc_docs tree with the kbuild tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Kamil,

On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 18:43:32 +0200 Kamil Rytarowski <n54@gmx.com> wrote:
>
> Am I expected to do it myself and resend a new patch?

No, this conflict is not very hard to fix up, so Linus just needs to be
told it exists as a courtesy.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

linux-next: manual merge of the jc_docs tree with the kbuild tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1087 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the jc_docs tree got a conflict in:

  Documentation/kbuild/index.rst

between commit:

  fcf1b6a35c16 ("Documentation/llvm: add documentation on building w/ Clang/LLVM")

from the kbuild tree and commit:

  2b4cbd5c9505 ("docs: move gcc-plugins to the kbuild manual")

from the jc_docs tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc Documentation/kbuild/index.rst
index 3882bd5f7728,82daf2efcb73..000000000000
--- a/Documentation/kbuild/index.rst
+++ b/Documentation/kbuild/index.rst
@@@ -19,7 -19,7 +19,8 @@@ Kernel Build Syste
  
      issues
      reproducible-builds
 +    llvm
+     gcc-plugins
  
  .. only::  subproject and html
  

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]