Hi Jan, On Thu, 4 Jul 2013 19:43:04 +0200 Jan Kara <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm just writing this to let you know that I had to rebase for_next ^^^ wrong choice of work, you "chose" to rebase. :-)
> branch in my linux-fs git tree because I've messed up my tree and for_linus > & for_next branches contained the same patches but with different commit > IDs (fast track fixes). When I pulled for_next into for_linus branch, > the changelog had commit logs for those patches twice which was rather > confusing. The only solution I found was to rebase for_next on top of > for_linus to get rid of the duplicate patches. If there's a cleaner > solution of the situation, I'm happy to learn it for future... Just leave it. Linus and I know how to cope with those (maybe explain to Linus what happened). In the future, if you put fixes in your for_linus branch and *need* those fixes in your for_next branch, then merge your for_linus branch into your for_next branch instead of cherry-picking the patches. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
pgpA9lw7ynAGx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
