Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1680491 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Kamil Rytarowski <n54@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-07-03 18:50 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-07-03 20:40 +0200 |
| Articles | 3 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
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 | Kamil Rytarowski <n54@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-03 18:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the jc_docs tree with the kbuild tree |
| Message-ID | <tZcHT-43W-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
[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] | [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