Re: linux-next: current pending merge fix patches
From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Mon Mar 01 2010 - 03:11:18 EST
* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This could also be taken as a reminder to the respective maintiners that
> they may want to do a merge of your tree before asking you to pull theirs.
I dont think that's generally correct for trivial conflicts: it's better if
Linus does the merge of a tree that is based in some stable tree.
It causes slightly messier criss-cross history: there will be the back-merge
commit plus the inevitable merge commit from Linus. It also makes bisection a
For example when bisecting i generally consider the 'boundary' of where Linus
pulls as a 'known point of stability': i.e. the 'subsystem side' is expected
to be well-tested and if there's a problem on that side, it's that subsystem's
"Linus's side", during the merge window, is a rolling tree of many freshly
merged trees, which inevitably piles up a few problems.
So it's IMO somewhat better to keep that boundary and not push out Linus's
side into subsystem trees: which then may merge a few new patches after having
merged Linus's tree, intermixing it all into a non-bisectable combination.
Plus there's also an indirect effect: it keeps people from merging back
Linus's tree all the time.
So i'd argue to not backmerge during the merge window (and i have stopped
doing that myself a few cycles ago, and it clearly helped things) - but in any
case it's certainly no big deal and up to Linus i guess.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/