From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751266AbdEFSMt (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 May 2017 14:12:49 -0400 Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:47082 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750916AbdEFSMn (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 May 2017 14:12:43 -0400 Message-ID: <1494094356.2407.20.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Char/Misc driver patches for 4.12-rc1 From: James Bottomley To: Linus Torvalds , Stephen Rothwell Cc: Greg KH , Jarkko Sakkinen , Andrew Morton , Arnd Bergmann , Linux Kernel Mailing List Date: Sat, 06 May 2017 11:12:36 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <20170505001808.GA16769@kroah.com> <1494000006.2399.7.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20170505163846.GA31211@kroah.com> <20170506150911.1612bb15@canb.auug.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.16.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2017-05-06 at 11:00 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 10:09 PM, Stephen Rothwell < > sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 5 May 2017 13:01:34 -0700 Linus Torvalds < > > torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I prefer doing merge resolutions myself, but I *also* really > > > really prefer the two sides of the conflict having been more > > > aware of the clash. > > > > Would that be this? > > Yup. Apparently neither Greg nor James ended up reacting to that > email, though, Yes, we did, but for the one in SCSI ... as I said the original conflict resolution with our tree was eventually found to be slightly wrong so there was an email thread over it. There's not much I can do about the one in tpmdd-devel because it's not my tree. Even Jarkko can't do much more than tell James Morris for the Security tree, and I think this came up after it had already been pulled into that tree. > so by the time I got the pull requests there was no > mention of it anywhere. Well, there was in the SCSI pull request, but the only reason I remembered is because I'd made a special note of the potential resolve problem when this came up on the SCSI mailing list. The original merge conflict email came 6 weeks before the merge window, which is why everyone had had time to forget. What about resending the conflict reminders at -rc7 ... that way we only have a week or two to forget again? The other issue is that one of the potential trees only got notified directly (the char-misc one) because the tpmdd tree takes an indirect pull route. I'm not sure what we can do about this one. James