Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rdma tree with the net-next tree

[Linus Torvalds]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 3/16/2016 1:18 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
>>> is required).
>>
>> Side note: can you change this wording for your manual merge script?
>> Last merge window (or was it the one before it?) we had confusion with
>> people who thought that "no action is required" means "you can just
>> ignore this entirely".
>
> I certainly didn't take it that way regardless of the wording.

It was Or Gerlitz. You were cc'd, since it was the whole rdma Mellanox
mess. I quote from that thread:

 "> However, the fact that it got resolved in linux-next is purely
  > informational. It doesn't "fix" the conflict - it just means that both
  > sides should have gotten informed about it. That doesn't mean that the
  > conflict goes away or becomes better.

  That's news to me. When such things happen and caught by Stephen, we
  are getting an email saying something like

  "Today's linux-next merge of the infiniband tree got a conflict
  between commit X from net-next tree and commit Y from the infiniband
  tree. I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no
  action is required)."

  Also asked around a bit and got to learn on Stephen using git rerere,
  so all (no action needed note + seeing git rerere in action...) that
  leaded me to think that indeed no action is required from our side,
  but after reading your email (twice, so far), I realized that this was
  wrong conclusion."

So that whole "no action is required" wording very much has caused
confusion before in the rdma camp.

Let's fix the wording. I'm indeed hopeful that the rdma camp is now
keenly aware of the issues, but that doesn't change the fact that the
wording has been problematic.

                  Linus