On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 11:07:32AM +0200, Simona Vetter wrote: > The assumption is that committers will ask maintainers for help if they're > trying to push a patch that results in tons of conflicts when applying > (since development should happen on top of linux-next or drm-tip). Could > probably improve that a bit. But also, often it's only clear after > applying that a fixup is needed, and then it's pushed already. And with > committers there's no undoing pushed patches. So it's just part of the > deal with having lots of committers imo that history is a bit more a mess > at times.
What I see frequently in -next is people just cherry picking the fixes into the development branch instead of doing a merge, this leads to pointless conflicts as soon as someone adds new code on top of the fix. I gather the stable people also aren't terribly enthusiastic about this workflow. There also seem to be repeated situations where people mail me saying they're going to introduce a bunch of conflicts that are sufficiently non-obvious they're sending me fixups in whatever random form, even where people seem to think it's a big problem themselves there seems to be a helplessness about actually doing the merge.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
