On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Olof Johansson <o...@lixom.net> wrote:
>
> Final two pull requests are for the same code. As Arnd describes in the
> tags, they are for a set of mvebu patches that depend on contents in
> the MMC tree. We had pulled in part of the MMC branch as a dependency,
> but unfortunately Chris Ball rebased it.
Has Chris Ball been told what an incredible pain this kind of crap is,
and that there's a damn good reason why WE DO NOT REBASE PUBLIC TREES
THAT OTHERS MAY BE BASING THEIR DEVELOPMENT ON!
Chris, can you hear me shouting? Don't do that.
> We're giving you the choice of taking the rebased version, or a
> non-rebased-but-merged-and-fixed-up version to avoid dealing with the
> excessive conflicts. The rebased one has the obvious benefit of not
> having duplicate commits in the tree for the same changes, but, well,
> it's rebased. Actual tree contents is identical though.
I'm taking the rebased one, thanks for the explanation. I really don't
like rebasing, but you did it for a valid reason, and it wasn't your
mistake. And duplicating the commits just to be a pain is not worth
it.
> I've pushed a resolved branch for reference (late-branches-resolved)
> in case you want to compare conflict resolutions.
So Arnd's tag talked about removing the stale gpio.h, but I think it
was the i2c.h that was now also stale. So I removed both - even though
technically, the merge should have left i2c.h since it was in both
parents. You should double-check that, but I don't see how that
<linux/i2c.h> could *possibly* be valid any more, and people had tried
(unsuccessfully) to remove it once already, so...
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
