Re: [GIT PULL 0/3] arm-soc: late changes for 3.9
On Friday 01 March 2013, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Olof Johansson wrote: > > > > Final two pull requests are for the same code. As Arnd describes in the > > tags, they are for a set of mvebu patches that depend on contents in > > the MMC tree. We had pulled in part of the MMC branch as a dependency, > > but unfortunately Chris Ball rebased it. > > Has Chris Ball been told what an incredible pain this kind of crap is, > and that there's a damn good reason why WE DO NOT REBASE PUBLIC TREES > THAT OTHERS MAY BE BASING THEIR DEVELOPMENT ON! > > Chris, can you hear me shouting? Don't do that. I talked to Chris while I prepared the two branches, and he now understands the consequences and won't do it again. I also talked to Jason Cooper about it and he is going to do his branches differently now to avoid building deep dependency chains on other trees. We've had similar problems with other subsystem maintainers before, but there are a lot more subsystems that one can depend on. We generally try to do the branches in a way that we can drop a small part of the stuff in arm-soc without rebasing when someone else screws up, but that did not happen in this case. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [GIT PULL 0/3] arm-soc: late changes for 3.9
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> I've pushed a resolved branch for reference (late-branches-resolved) >> in case you want to compare conflict resolutions. > > So Arnd's tag talked about removing the stale gpio.h, but I think it > was the i2c.h that was now also stale. So I removed both - even though > technically, the merge should have left i2c.h since it was in both > parents. You should double-check that, but I don't see how that > could *possibly* be valid any more, and people had tried > (unsuccessfully) to remove it once already, so... The i2c include is definitely unnecessary since there's no i2c_board_info stuff left in the file. Thanks for catching that. -Olof -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [GIT PULL 0/3] arm-soc: late changes for 3.9
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Olof Johansson wrote: > > Final two pull requests are for the same code. As Arnd describes in the > tags, they are for a set of mvebu patches that depend on contents in > the MMC tree. We had pulled in part of the MMC branch as a dependency, > but unfortunately Chris Ball rebased it. Has Chris Ball been told what an incredible pain this kind of crap is, and that there's a damn good reason why WE DO NOT REBASE PUBLIC TREES THAT OTHERS MAY BE BASING THEIR DEVELOPMENT ON! Chris, can you hear me shouting? Don't do that. > We're giving you the choice of taking the rebased version, or a > non-rebased-but-merged-and-fixed-up version to avoid dealing with the > excessive conflicts. The rebased one has the obvious benefit of not > having duplicate commits in the tree for the same changes, but, well, > it's rebased. Actual tree contents is identical though. I'm taking the rebased one, thanks for the explanation. I really don't like rebasing, but you did it for a valid reason, and it wasn't your mistake. And duplicating the commits just to be a pain is not worth it. > I've pushed a resolved branch for reference (late-branches-resolved) > in case you want to compare conflict resolutions. So Arnd's tag talked about removing the stale gpio.h, but I think it was the i2c.h that was now also stale. So I removed both - even though technically, the merge should have left i2c.h since it was in both parents. You should double-check that, but I don't see how that could *possibly* be valid any more, and people had tried (unsuccessfully) to remove it once already, so... Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[GIT PULL 0/3] arm-soc: late changes for 3.9
Hi Linus, Here is a series of merge requests for arm-soc branches. The first two are mostly normal changes, The OMAP changes came in late before the merge window opened, so we wanted to let them sit for a few more days in -next. The i.MX branch is a churny branch that I wanted to keep separate and not have other code depend on, and thus held it off to the second batch. Final two pull requests are for the same code. As Arnd describes in the tags, they are for a set of mvebu patches that depend on contents in the MMC tree. We had pulled in part of the MMC branch as a dependency, but unfortunately Chris Ball rebased it. We're giving you the choice of taking the rebased version, or a non-rebased-but-merged-and-fixed-up version to avoid dealing with the excessive conflicts. The rebased one has the obvious benefit of not having duplicate commits in the tree for the same changes, but, well, it's rebased. Actual tree contents is identical though. I've pushed a resolved branch for reference (late-branches-resolved) in case you want to compare conflict resolutions. Thanks, -Olof -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
