Re: linux-next: manual merge of the jc_docs tree with the kbuild tree

2017-07-03 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi Kamil, On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 18:43:32 +0200 Kamil Rytarowski 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

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the jc_docs tree with the kbuild tree

2017-07-03 Thread Jonathan Corbet
On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 18:43:32 +0200 Kamil Rytarowski 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 wha

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the jc_docs tree with the kbuild tree

2017-07-03 Thread Kamil Rytarowski
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 > wrote: >> >> Today's linux-next m

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the jc_docs tree with the kbuild tree

2017-07-02 Thread Stephen Rothwell
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 wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the jc_docs tree got a conflict in: > > scripts/kernel-doc-xml-ref > > between commit: > > cb77f0d623ff ("scr

linux-next: manual merge of the jc_docs tree with the kbuild tree

2017-06-25 Thread Stephen Rothwell
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_do