Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1465868 > unrolled thread

linux-next: manual merge of the jc_docs tree with the drm-misc tree

Started byStephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
First post2016-08-19 04:00 +0200
Last post2016-08-22 09:00 +0200
Articles 3 — 3 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel


Contents

  linux-next: manual merge of the jc_docs tree with the drm-misc tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2016-08-19 04:00 +0200
    Re: linux-next: manual merge of the jc_docs tree with the drm-misc  tree Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> - 2016-08-19 20:00 +0200
      Re: linux-next: manual merge of the jc_docs tree with the drm-misc  tree Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> - 2016-08-22 09:00 +0200

#1465868 — linux-next: manual merge of the jc_docs tree with the drm-misc tree

FromStephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date2016-08-19 04:00 +0200
Subjectlinux-next: manual merge of the jc_docs tree with the drm-misc tree
Message-ID<s7Hge-7z4-25@gated-at.bofh.it>
Hi Jonathan,

Today's linux-next merge of the jc_docs tree got a conflict in:

  Documentation/gpu/index.rst

between commit:

  b754b35b089d ("vgaarbiter: rst-ifiy and polish kerneldoc")

from the drm-misc tree and commit:

  505f711174b0 ("doc-rst: add index to sub-folders")

from the jc_docs tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc Documentation/gpu/index.rst
index ba92f45abb76,5ff3d2b236af..000000000000
--- a/Documentation/gpu/index.rst
+++ b/Documentation/gpu/index.rst
@@@ -12,4 -12,10 +12,11 @@@ Linux GPU Driver Developer's Guid
     drm-uapi
     i915
     vga-switcheroo
 +   vgaarbiter
+ 
+ .. only::  subproject
+ 
+    Indices
+    =======
+ 
+    * :ref:`genindex`

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1466587 — Re: linux-next: manual merge of the jc_docs tree with the drm-misc tree

FromJonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Date2016-08-19 20:00 +0200
SubjectRe: linux-next: manual merge of the jc_docs tree with the drm-misc tree
Message-ID<s7Wff-e9-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1465868
On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 11:52:15 +1000
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Today's linux-next merge of the jc_docs tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   Documentation/gpu/index.rst
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   b754b35b089d ("vgaarbiter: rst-ifiy and polish kerneldoc")
> 
> from the drm-misc tree and commit:
> 
>   505f711174b0 ("doc-rst: add index to sub-folders")
> 
> from the jc_docs tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.

Thanks, the fix is good.

Daniel: my apologies, I should have asked for that patch to be split up
and the relevant pieces sent through the gpu and media trees.

jon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1467411 — Re: linux-next: manual merge of the jc_docs tree with the drm-misc tree

FromDaniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Date2016-08-22 09:00 +0200
SubjectRe: linux-next: manual merge of the jc_docs tree with the drm-misc tree
Message-ID<s8Rnc-2P6-29@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1466587
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:50:09AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 11:52:15 +1000
> Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the jc_docs tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   Documentation/gpu/index.rst
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   b754b35b089d ("vgaarbiter: rst-ifiy and polish kerneldoc")
> > 
> > from the drm-misc tree and commit:
> > 
> >   505f711174b0 ("doc-rst: add index to sub-folders")
> > 
> > from the jc_docs tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.
> 
> Thanks, the fix is good.
> 
> Daniel: my apologies, I should have asked for that patch to be split up
> and the relevant pieces sent through the gpu and media trees.

No worries, as far as conflicts go this one is trivial ;-) And I think a
few conflicts while we shake out best practices for the new doc
infrastructure in various trees is perfectly fine.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web