Re: linux-next: manual merge of the char-misc tree with the mfd tree

[Lee Jones]

On Wed, 02 Mar 2022, Robert Marko wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 11:54 AM Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 01 Mar 2022, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 09:37:41AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Greg KH wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 12:46:44PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 09:01:49AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the char-misc tree got a conflict in:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I did ask for this *not* to be merged when it was in -testing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry, I missed that, I saw your ack on the patch so that's why I took
> > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'll follow-up with Greg.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Should I revert this from my tree?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I did try to catch it before a revert would have been required.
> > > > >
> > > > > My fault.
> > > > >
> > > > > > But yes, please revert it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Will go do so now.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you.
> > > >
> > > > > > The Ack is not standard and should not be merged.
> > > > >
> > > > > I do not understand this, what went wrong here?
> > > >
> > > > The "Ack" you saw was just a placeholder.
> > > >
> > > > When I provided it, I would have done so like this:
> > > >
> > > >     "For my own reference (apply this as-is to your sign-off block):
> > > >
> > > >      Acked-for-MFD-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx>"
> > > >
> > > > REF: https://lore.kernel.org/all/YQ0fYe531yCyP4pf@xxxxxxxxxx/
> > > >
> > > > The majority of maintainers I regularly work with know this to mean
> > > > that the set is due to be routed via MFD (with a subsequent
> > > > pull-request to an immutable branch to follow), since MFD is often
> > > > the centre piece (parent) of the patch-sets I deal with.
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate that this could cause confusion, but I'm not sure of a
> > > > better way to convey this information such that it survives through
> > > > various submission iterations.
> > >
> > > But what else is another maintainer supposed to think if they see that
> > > ack on the patch?  Ignore it?  I took that to mean "this is good from a
> > > mfd-point-of-view" which meant it can go through whatever tree it is
> > > supposed to.
> > >
> > > Are you wanting this individual patch to go through your tree now only?
> > > If so, you should say that by NOT acking it :)
> >
> > It's not quite as easy as that.
> >
> > It wouldn't be fair to the contributor to start reviews once all the
> > other patches in the set are ready to be merged.  So how would I
> > indicate that the MFD part is ready, fully expecting some of the other
> > patches in the set to be reworked and subsequent revisions are to be
> > submitted?
> >
> > This method actually works really well the majority of the time, and
> > has done for a number of years.  However, I am always willing to
> > improve on my processes given the opportunity.
> >
> > > How do you want to see this merged?
> >
> > The plan is for the whole set to be merged together via MFD.
> >
> > All of the other maintainers have now Acked, so it's ready to go:
> >
> >   https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220131133049.77780-1-robert.marko@xxxxxxxxxx/
> 
> Hi Lee, as far as I understand you will now take this series up via
> your MFD tree?

Yes, that's correct.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Principal Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog