On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 09:00:06AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
>> On Thu, 2017-05-04 at 19:28 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> >
>> > Ugh. I'm not particularly happy with the conflicts I got and my
>> > resolutions there-of.
>>
>> Yes, we really should have done this via a postmerge tree. We've had
>> so little cause to use them recently, I suspect everyone's forgotten
>> how.
>
> Huh? You could have pulled in my tree into this one, or I could have
> done that for you, my trees are not rebased at all, and they get used
> this way every other release or so for this very reason.
I actually would have preferred to not get any early merges, but what
I was unhappy about is that I also didn't really get any heads-up
about the cdev_device_add() conflict.
I did get notified about the other conflict (thanks, James), but
somehow the cdev_device_add() changes didn't cause the same kind of
notification.
So my unhappiness is not about me having to resolve things (I'm happy
to do that) but about how apparently -next failed to notice that part
of my merge resolution. Or maybe it was noticed in -next, but then the
information about it got lost.
I prefer doing merge resolutions myself, but I *also* really really
prefer the two sides of the conflict having been more aware of the
clash.
Linus
