* Rebased for_next branch in my linux-fs git tree
@ 2013-07-04 17:43 Jan Kara
2013-07-05 0:04 ` Stephen Rothwell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kara @ 2013-07-04 17:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Rothwell; +Cc: LKML
Hello Stephen,
I'm just writing this to let you know that I had to rebase for_next
branch in my linux-fs git tree because I've messed up my tree and for_linus
& for_next branches contained the same patches but with different commit
IDs (fast track fixes). When I pulled for_next into for_linus branch,
the changelog had commit logs for those patches twice which was rather
confusing. The only solution I found was to rebase for_next on top of
for_linus to get rid of the duplicate patches. If there's a cleaner
solution of the situation, I'm happy to learn it for future...
This is just that you know what's going on when you are doing your merge
window statistics :).
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Rebased for_next branch in my linux-fs git tree
2013-07-04 17:43 Rebased for_next branch in my linux-fs git tree Jan Kara
@ 2013-07-05 0:04 ` Stephen Rothwell
2013-07-05 2:57 ` Stephen Rothwell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2013-07-05 0:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Kara; +Cc: LKML
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1153 bytes --]
Hi Jan,
On Thu, 4 Jul 2013 19:43:04 +0200 Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> I'm just writing this to let you know that I had to rebase for_next
^^^
wrong choice of work, you "chose" to rebase. :-)
> branch in my linux-fs git tree because I've messed up my tree and for_linus
> & for_next branches contained the same patches but with different commit
> IDs (fast track fixes). When I pulled for_next into for_linus branch,
> the changelog had commit logs for those patches twice which was rather
> confusing. The only solution I found was to rebase for_next on top of
> for_linus to get rid of the duplicate patches. If there's a cleaner
> solution of the situation, I'm happy to learn it for future...
Just leave it. Linus and I know how to cope with those (maybe explain to
Linus what happened). In the future, if you put fixes in your for_linus
branch and *need* those fixes in your for_next branch, then merge your
for_linus branch into your for_next branch instead of cherry-picking the
patches.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Rebased for_next branch in my linux-fs git tree
2013-07-05 0:04 ` Stephen Rothwell
@ 2013-07-05 2:57 ` Stephen Rothwell
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2013-07-05 2:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Kara; +Cc: LKML
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 446 bytes --]
On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 10:04:37 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 4 Jul 2013 19:43:04 +0200 Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
> >
> > I'm just writing this to let you know that I had to rebase for_next
> ^^^
> wrong choice of work, you "chose" to rebase. :-)
^^^^
word
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-07-05 2:58 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-07-04 17:43 Rebased for_next branch in my linux-fs git tree Jan Kara
2013-07-05 0:04 ` Stephen Rothwell
2013-07-05 2:57 ` Stephen Rothwell
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.