Re: linux-next: manual merge of the workqueues tree with Linus'tree
From: Stephen Rothwell
Date: Tue Mar 19 2013 - 18:20:20 EST
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 15:13:08 -0700 Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 09:05:40AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Anyways, I pulled master into wq/for-next and resolved it there, so it
> > > shouldn't cause you any more trouble.
> > Ah, OK, thanks. One small point, when you do a back merge like that,
> > you should always put an explanation in the commit message for the merge.
> Oh, I do that for any permanent branches. for-next branches are
> ephemeral (at least in my trees) so I usually don't bother. I do
> compare against for-next when and after sending pull requests with
> proper conflict descriptions, so things are not likely to slip through
> there. Hmmm.... if it's gonna be helpful to you, I'd be happy to
> describe merge conflicts and resolutions in for-next merges. Would
> that be helpful?
No, that's OK. I do wonder some times why some people have "ephemeral"
-next branches, though? I guess, in your case, that you send your stuff
to Linus in more than one pull request and have just combined them to
reduce the conflicts for my benefit? Which is fine.
Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Description: PGP signature