From: Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the openrisc tree with Linus' tree
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 11:06:13 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210125020613.GT2002709@lianli.shorne-pla.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210125124746.40e2638d@canb.auug.org.au>
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 12:47:46PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Stafford,
>
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:04:46 +0900 Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Thank's I knew about this conflict but I was not sure the best way to handle, I
> > was/am going to rebase the openrisc/for-next branch onto 5.11-rc5 once released.
> > I will resolve the conflict during the rebase so you should be able to drop the
> > conflict patch after that.
>
> Its a pretty trivial conflict, so I wouldn't do the rebase just for this.
Alright, I will not rebase.
> > The issue is I had a fix that went straight to 5.11. Should I usually put these
> > kind of fixes on my for-next and my fixes branches in parallel, that way I can
> > resolve conflicts on for-next before hand?
>
> I notice that the version in Linus' tree was merged from a separate
> branch. The easiest that to do is for you to merge that same branch
> into your for-next branch - that way you only get your own changes, not
> any other stuff that might be in Linus' tree.
>
> > I don't usually do that as in my mind for next is for 5.12 and fixes for 5.11 go
> > straight to 5.11. Also, I don't like putting the same patch in 2 queues. But
> > if I got any advice on how to avoid this in the future it would be appreciated.
>
> Like I said, just merge your fixes branch into you for-next branch
> when/if you think the fixes are important for further development, or
> the conflicts become to great.
That sounds like a good idea. Let me do that.
> I can also add you fixes branch to linux-next if you like (I already
> have 86 other "fixes" branches).
I think that should be alright for now, I'll maintain merging the fixes branch
myself when I think it's needed.
Thank you,
-Stafford
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-25 2:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-24 22:05 linux-next: manual merge of the openrisc tree with Linus' tree Stephen Rothwell
2021-01-25 1:04 ` Stafford Horne
2021-01-25 1:47 ` Stephen Rothwell
2021-01-25 2:06 ` Stafford Horne [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-09-13 2:11 Stephen Rothwell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210125020613.GT2002709@lianli.shorne-pla.net \
--to=shorne@gmail.com \
--cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).