Daniel Phillips <phillips@arcor.de> said:
[...]
> You confused semantic dependencies with structural dependencies that
> govern whether or not deltas conflict in the reject sense. Detailed
> reply is off-list.
In both cases hand fixup is needed. The "overlapping patch" partial order
is a (small, or even very small) subset of the "depends on" partial order
which you really want. It would be nice to be able to get a much better
approximation than "conflicting patch" automatically, but I fail to see
how. Giving dependencies by hand is a possibility, but it will most of the
time give as bad an approximation as the above (Do you really know _all_
patches on which your latest and greatest depends? Some (or even most) of
them will be old patches, that by now will be just part of the general
landscape. And this can happen even with direct dependencies: Think of
"disabling IRQs doesn't ensure mutual exclusion" or some such pervasive
change that will affect a small part of any patch, and now move an old
patch forward...).
-- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 15 2003 - 22:00:43 EST