On Sat, 2017-05-06 at 11:00 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 10:09 PM, Stephen Rothwell < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 5 May 2017 13:01:34 -0700 Linus Torvalds < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > Would that be this? > > Yup. Apparently neither Greg nor James ended up reacting to that > email, though,
Yes, we did, but for the one in SCSI ... as I said the original conflict resolution with our tree was eventually found to be slightly wrong so there was an email thread over it. There's not much I can do about the one in tpmdd-devel because it's not my tree. Even Jarkko can't do much more than tell James Morris for the Security tree, and I think this came up after it had already been pulled into that tree. > so by the time I got the pull requests there was no > mention of it anywhere. Well, there was in the SCSI pull request, but the only reason I remembered is because I'd made a special note of the potential resolve problem when this came up on the SCSI mailing list. The original merge conflict email came 6 weeks before the merge window, which is why everyone had had time to forget. What about resending the conflict reminders at -rc7 ... that way we only have a week or two to forget again? The other issue is that one of the potential trees only got notified directly (the char-misc one) because the tpmdd tree takes an indirect pull route. I'm not sure what we can do about this one. James
