Re: linux-next: manual merge of the openrisc tree with Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Stafford,

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:04:46 +0900 Stafford Horne <shorne@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Thank's I knew about this conflict but I was not sure the best way to handle, I
> was/am going to rebase the openrisc/for-next branch onto 5.11-rc5 once released.
> I will resolve the conflict during the rebase so you should be able to drop the
> conflict patch after that.

Its a pretty trivial conflict, so I wouldn't do the rebase just for this.

> The issue is I had a fix that went straight to 5.11.  Should I usually put these
> kind of fixes on my for-next and my fixes branches in parallel, that way I can
> resolve conflicts on for-next before hand?

I notice that the version in Linus' tree was merged from a separate
branch.  The easiest that to do is for you to merge that same branch
into your for-next branch - that way you only get your own changes, not
any other stuff that might be in Linus' tree.

> I don't usually do that as in my mind for next is for 5.12 and fixes for 5.11 go
> straight to 5.11.  Also, I don't like putting the same patch in 2 queues.  But
> if I got any advice on how to avoid this in the future it would be appreciated.

Like I said, just merge your fixes branch into you for-next branch
when/if you think the fixes are important for further development, or
the conflicts become to great.

I can also add you fixes branch to linux-next if you like (I already
have 86 other "fixes" branches).

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Attachment: pgp2XOqR4YxnJ.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature