Re: linux-next: merge fixups relative to the vfs tree
From: Sage Weil
Date: Mon Jan 18 2010 - 23:47:23 EST
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> It looks like you added my patch to your tree, but did not merge Al's
> write_inode branch. So, I assume that your tree is currently broken if
> built on its own.
Not to worry, only the for-next branch.
> > More generally, I'm not sure I understand how your fixups are supposed to
> > be used down the line. Is whichever tree that caused the conflict to get
> > merged second supposed to pick it up in their branch to pull, or are those
> > patches being fed to Linus somehow, or does he usually fix up those
> > conflicts himself?
> Yeah, either the second tree's owner will do the fixup after the first is
> merged into Linus' tree or (more commonly for simple fixups), Linus will
> do the fix when he merges the second tree. In this particular case, the
> conflicts are not noticed by git during the merge, so they need to be
> done manually by the second tree's owner, or by Linus (if we tell him).
> I will attempt to remember to warn Linus if these conflicts remain during
> the next merge window but if you and Jörn merge Al's branch and apply the
> fix, then it will all be OK.
Okay, that makes sense. I've merged Al's branch, so feel free to forget. :)
Also, I resolved the ioctl-number.txt fixup you're carrying in that merge,
so you should be able to drop that. I'll make sure both conflicts are
dealt with in my tree one way or another before it gets pulled.