Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

Linus Torvalds writes: > It's literally just the fact that "git merge" does it with no extra > flags or checks. I'd like people to have to be aware of what they are > doing when they merge two different projects, not do it by mistake. > > So making it conditional

Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

Linus Torvalds writes: > It's literally just the fact that "git merge" does it with no extra > flags or checks. I'd like people to have to be aware of what they are > doing when they merge two different projects, not do it by mistake. > > So making it conditional on a flag like

Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

Johannes Schindelin writes: > Hi Linus, > > On Fri, 18 Mar 2016, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> I thought git didn't merge two branches that have no common base by >> default, but it seems it will happily do so. > > What happened to "The coolest merge EVER!"? > >

Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

Johannes Schindelin writes: > Hi Linus, > > On Fri, 18 Mar 2016, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> I thought git didn't merge two branches that have no common base by >> default, but it seems it will happily do so. > > What happened to "The coolest merge EVER!"? > >

Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

Linus Torvalds writes: > The code in the recursive merge that allows this to happen is this: > ... > And I do think that's right, and I think it's clever, and it goes back to > 2006: > > 934d9a24078e merge-recur: if there is no common ancestor, fake empty one >

Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

Linus Torvalds writes: > The code in the recursive merge that allows this to happen is this: > ... > And I do think that's right, and I think it's clever, and it goes back to > 2006: > > 934d9a24078e merge-recur: if there is no common ancestor, fake empty one > > but I think there should be

Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

On Friday 18 March 2016 02:31 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 7:07 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:59 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: The end result should be clean but the history is a bit messy. Gaah.

Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

On Friday 18 March 2016 02:31 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 7:07 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:59 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: The end result should be clean but the history is a bit messy. Gaah. I took the tree, but I didn't realize just *how* messy it

Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 7:07 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:59 AM, Linus Walleij > wrote: >> >> The end result should be clean but the history is a bit messy. > > Gaah. I took the tree, but I didn't realize just

Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 7:07 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:59 AM, Linus Walleij > wrote: >> >> The end result should be clean but the history is a bit messy. > > Gaah. I took the tree, but I didn't realize just *how* messy it was. I > doubt you did either. Certainly

Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

On Friday 18 March 2016 11:37 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:59 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: NOTE: tree was a bit dirty and I realized it too late: Laxmans devm_gpiochip_add() branch was based on my for-next branch rather than my devel branch, making

Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

On Friday 18 March 2016 11:37 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:59 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: NOTE: tree was a bit dirty and I realized it too late: Laxmans devm_gpiochip_add() branch was based on my for-next branch rather than my devel branch, making some commits appear twice

Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > On Fri, 18 Mar 2016, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> I thought git didn't merge two branches that have no common base by >> default, but it seems it will happily do so. > > What happened to "The coolest merge

Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > On Fri, 18 Mar 2016, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> I thought git didn't merge two branches that have no common base by >> default, but it seems it will happily do so. > > What happened to "The coolest merge EVER!"? > >

Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:07 PM, Laxman Dewangan wrote: > > For creating the repo and branch, I just followed the instruction from wiki > https://help.github.com/articles/create-a-repo/ So you shouldn't have created a new repo at all, you should just have cloned an

Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:07 PM, Laxman Dewangan wrote: > > For creating the repo and branch, I just followed the instruction from wiki > https://help.github.com/articles/create-a-repo/ So you shouldn't have created a new repo at all, you should just have cloned an existing one (that gets you a

[GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

Hi Linus, here is the big bulk of changes for kernel v4.6. There is quite a lot of interesting stuff going on. NOTE: tree was a bit dirty and I realized it too late: Laxmans devm_gpiochip_add() branch was based on my for-next branch rather than my devel branch, making some commits appear twice

[GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

Hi Linus, here is the big bulk of changes for kernel v4.6. There is quite a lot of interesting stuff going on. NOTE: tree was a bit dirty and I realized it too late: Laxmans devm_gpiochip_add() branch was based on my for-next branch rather than my devel branch, making some commits appear twice

Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

Hi Linus, On Fri, 18 Mar 2016, Linus Torvalds wrote: > I thought git didn't merge two branches that have no common base by > default, but it seems it will happily do so. What happened to "The coolest merge EVER!"? http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/5126/ Ciao,

Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

Hi Linus, On Fri, 18 Mar 2016, Linus Torvalds wrote: > I thought git didn't merge two branches that have no common base by > default, but it seems it will happily do so. What happened to "The coolest merge EVER!"? http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/5126/ Ciao,

Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> I don't think the original "resolve" did it, for example. You can't do >> a three-way merge without a base. > > Yes, and that continues to this day: Yeah, "octopus" also refuses it cleanly: common=$(git

Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> I don't think the original "resolve" did it, for example. You can't do >> a three-way merge without a base. > > Yes, and that continues to this day: Yeah, "octopus" also refuses it cleanly: common=$(git merge-base --all $SHA1

Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:59 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > > NOTE: tree was a bit dirty and I realized it too late: Laxmans > devm_gpiochip_add() branch was based on my for-next branch rather > than my devel branch, making some commits appear twice and > a file named

Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:59 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > > NOTE: tree was a bit dirty and I realized it too late: Laxmans > devm_gpiochip_add() branch was based on my for-next branch rather > than my devel branch, making some commits appear twice and > a file named README.md "Share upstreaming

Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 2:39 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote: > > Apologizing for the trouble created by me. Don't worry about it, we'll just have to make sure it doesn't happen again. I thought you must have had done something special to do this, and that made me upset. But

Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 2:39 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote: > > Apologizing for the trouble created by me. Don't worry about it, we'll just have to make sure it doesn't happen again. I thought you must have had done something special to do this, and that made me upset. But the fact that it was