Re: linux-next: current pending merge fix patches

From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Mon Mar 01 2010 - 04:02:02 EST

* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Ingo,
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 09:10:21 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> 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.
> In general I agree. I have singled out these conflict resolutions because
> they involve either files not obvious from the conflicts (newly introduced
> or chunks of code moved between files), or chunks of code that are
> introduced in one tree but need to be modified after the otheris merged. So
> in that sense they are a heads up to Linus because they are only found after
> you do the merge and then get a build failure (if you do the right builds).
> So they can be resolved by Linus after he merges the second tree or by the
> original maintainer of one of the trees merging/cherrypicking (part of) the
> other tree or waiting for Linus to merge the other tree and then do a merge
> with Linus' tree.

Conflict reminders are certainly useful - even for trivial commits.

My comments mostly related to the part of your suggestion that subsystem
maintainers may merge in Linus's tree before they send their pull request to
Linus - which i dont agree with in the general case, for the aforementioned


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at