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

[Paul Moore]

On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:26 PM, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 15:20:33 -0500
>
>>> So you would only have to wait until my tree went in before
>>> sending your pull request.
>>
>> So you would want me to rebase selinux/next on top of Linus' tree in
>> the middle of the merge window?  I'm sure that isn't what you meant,
>> but that's how I keep reading the above ... which can't be right,
>> because in my experience that's one way to piss off Linus.  Help me
>> understand what you are saying.
>
> I never said you rebase anything.  I wonder where you get that from.

As I said, I was just trying to figure out what you were suggesting.
Your email was not very clear in my opinion.

> I'm saying, you just defer your pull request until Linus takes my
> networking tree in.
>
> No changes or rebasing of your tree is necessary whatsoever.  You just
> ask him to pull your tree as-is.
>
> Again, this is what other smaller subsystem trees do when they have a
> situation like this.

Which gets us back to what I originally suggested in my first email of
this thread: linux-next carries the fixup patch and when we send the
pull requests to Linus we mention this fixup/thread.

For what it's worth, if you mention the potential merge conflict, and
the fixup that Stephen provided, it shouldn't matter when the pull
requests are sent to Linus; he's a smart guy, he'll merge things in
the order he wants.  I've seen more than a few people get burned by
deferring pull requests, I don't intend to have SELinux, or audit for
that matter, run into the same problem.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com