Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1674366 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-06-26 03:20 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-07-03 20:40 +0200 |
| Articles | 5 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
linux-next: manual merge of the jc_docs tree with the kbuild tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2017-06-26 03:20 +0200
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the jc_docs tree with the kbuild tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2017-07-03 05:00 +0200
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the jc_docs tree with the kbuild tree Kamil Rytarowski <n54@gmx.com> - 2017-07-03 18:50 +0200
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the jc_docs tree with the kbuild tree Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> - 2017-07-03 20:20 +0200
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the jc_docs tree with the kbuild tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2017-07-03 20:40 +0200
| From | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-26 03:20 +0200 |
| Subject | linux-next: manual merge of the jc_docs tree with the kbuild tree |
| Message-ID | <tWqR3-43B-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Hi Jonathan,
Today's linux-next merge of the jc_docs tree got a conflict in:
scripts/kernel-doc-xml-ref
between commit:
cb77f0d623ff ("scripts: Switch to more portable Perl shebang")
from the kbuild tree and commit:
52b3f239bb69 ("Docs: clean up some DocBook loose ends")
from the jc_docs tree.
I fixed it up (the latter removed the file, so I did that) 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
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-03 05:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the jc_docs tree with the kbuild tree |
| Message-ID | <tYZKG-3fo-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1674366 |
Hi all,
With the merge window opening, just a reminder that this conflict still
exists.
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 11:13:31 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the jc_docs tree got a conflict in:
>
> scripts/kernel-doc-xml-ref
>
> between commit:
>
> cb77f0d623ff ("scripts: Switch to more portable Perl shebang")
>
> from the kbuild tree and commit:
>
> 52b3f239bb69 ("Docs: clean up some DocBook loose ends")
>
> from the jc_docs tree.
>
> I fixed it up (the latter removed the file, so I did that) 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kamil Rytarowski <n54@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-03 18:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tZcHT-43W-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1679614 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Hello,
Am I expected to do it myself and resend a new patch?
On 03.07.2017 04:58, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> With the merge window opening, just a reminder that this conflict still
> exists.
>
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 11:13:31 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the jc_docs tree got a conflict in:
>>
>> scripts/kernel-doc-xml-ref
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>> cb77f0d623ff ("scripts: Switch to more portable Perl shebang")
>>
>> from the kbuild tree and commit:
>>
>> 52b3f239bb69 ("Docs: clean up some DocBook loose ends")
>>
>> from the jc_docs tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (the latter removed the file, so I did that) 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.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-03 20:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the jc_docs tree with the kbuild tree |
| Message-ID | <tZe6Z-54E-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1680491 |
On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 18:43:32 +0200 Kamil Rytarowski <n54@gmx.com> wrote: > Am I expected to do it myself and resend a new patch? > No, there should be no need for that. I've already mentioned the issue in my pull request; if the same happens on the kbuild side, Linus will not have a hard time figuring out what to do. jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-03 20:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the jc_docs tree with the kbuild tree |
| Message-ID | <tZeqm-5bb-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1680491 |
Hi Kamil, On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 18:43:32 +0200 Kamil Rytarowski <n54@gmx.com> wrote: > > Am I expected to do it myself and resend a new patch? No, this conflict is not very hard to fix up, so Linus just needs to be told it exists as a courtesy. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web