On 06/01/17 21:03, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 13:39 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Last night the target-bva tree was rebased on top of the target-updates
tree. Just now, part of the target-updates tree has been rewritten.
So now I expect to get conflict(s) when I merge
On 06/01/17 21:03, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 13:39 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Last night the target-bva tree was rebased on top of the target-updates
tree. Just now, part of the target-updates tree has been rewritten.
So now I expect to get conflict(s) when I merge
On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 13:39 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Last night the tagret-bva tree was rebased on top of the target-updates
> tree. Just now, part of the target-updates tree has been rewritten.
> So now I expect to get conflict(s) when I merge these trees since the
> commits
On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 13:39 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Last night the tagret-bva tree was rebased on top of the target-updates
> tree. Just now, part of the target-updates tree has been rewritten.
> So now I expect to get conflict(s) when I merge these trees since the
> commits
Hi all,
Last night the tagret-bva tree was rebased on top of the target-updates
tree. Just now, part of the target-updates tree has been rewritten.
So now I expect to get conflict(s) when I merge these trees since the
commits in the target-updates tree are no longer the same as those that
the
Hi all,
Last night the tagret-bva tree was rebased on top of the target-updates
tree. Just now, part of the target-updates tree has been rewritten.
So now I expect to get conflict(s) when I merge these trees since the
commits in the target-updates tree are no longer the same as those that
the
6 matches
Mail list logo
