Message ID | 20140715.002844.679028486034873225.davem@davemloft.net |
---|---|
State | Accepted, archived |
Delegated to: | David Miller |
Headers | show |
Ugh, I wanted to point this out, since looking at the history it's really ugly with silly extraneous merges for no good reason: John, take a look at this: On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:28 AM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote: > > John W. Linville (7): > Merge git://git.kernel.org/.../jberg/mac80211 > Merge branch 'for-john' of git://git.kernel.org/.../iwlwifi/iwlwifi-fixes > Merge branch 'for-upstream' of git://git.kernel.org/.../bluetooth/bluetooth > Merge branch 'ath-current' of git://github.com/kvalo/ath > Merge branch 'master' of git://git.kernel.org/.../linville/wireless into for-davem > Merge branch 'for-john' of git://git.kernel.org/.../iwlwifi/iwlwifi-fixes > Merge branch 'master' of git://git.kernel.org/.../linville/wireless into for-davem and notice that there are two different kinds of merges in there. One is the "merge from downstream developers" (good), but the other... You're not the only one that does a "merge into for-upstream", but it really is very noticeable in the resulting history. When David them merges, you now get *two* merges, and the history is actually rather less readable than it should/could be. Maybe David has *asked* you to do this to resolve any merge conflicts before sending it to him? I doubt it, though. There's no reason for "merge into for-davem". Just send David that thing you want merged. *Without* the extra merge. See what I'm saying? This is the kind of thing I usually ask for from my direct pull requests, for the same reason: it makes the history easier to see. Merges should be down *by* upstream, not *for* upstream. So those "into for-davem" merges are pointless and ugly. And if David actually asks for these, my apologies.. Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 08:52:33 -0700 > And if David actually asks for these, my apologies.. I didn't ask for these :-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:46:14AM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> > Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 08:52:33 -0700 > > > And if David actually asks for these, my apologies.. > > I didn't ask for these :-) Just trying to be helpful, for those times when there are non-trivial merge conflicts. I can stop. John
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 08:52:33 -0700 > Ugh, I wanted to point this out, since looking at the history it's > really ugly with silly extraneous merges for no good reason: Linus is there anything you want me to do to my tree before you'll pull this? Just wondering... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 19:24:24 -0700 > I just thought I'd point out this thing when I noticed. It's not > new, and has been going on, I just reacted to it now Ok, I'll discuss with John the best thing for us moving forward. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
"John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com> writes: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:46:14AM -0700, David Miller wrote: >> From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> >> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 08:52:33 -0700 >> >> > And if David actually asks for these, my apologies.. >> >> I didn't ask for these :-) > > Just trying to be helpful, for those times when there are non-trivial > merge conflicts. I can stop. Just out of curiosity, what is the best way to send a proposal how to fix a merge conflict? For example, if I send a pull request to John which I know will issue a conflict it would be nice to include instructions (or some sort of patch) how I think it should be resolved.
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Kalle Valo <kvalo@adurom.com> wrote: > > Just out of curiosity, what is the best way to send a proposal how to > fix a merge conflict? For example, if I send a pull request to John > which I know will issue a conflict it would be nice to include > instructions (or some sort of patch) how I think it should be resolved. So from personal experience seeing lots of different explanations, my preferred one is not so much a patch, as explaining *why* something generates a merge conflict. Optimally for each conflict, say what happened ("X changed Y, A changed B close by") and then describe the result in those terms (eg "pick the code from my branch, but then do the rename of xyz to abc that caused the conflict", or "pick your side, it obsoletes the fix from me that causes the conflict" or whatever). And if you have a *lot* of conflicts, explain why that happaned too, and think very hard about whether what you do is perhaps screwed up (or complain about the other entity that did annoying whitespace changes for no good reason or whatever). Maybe it's just that the source code is badly organized, but more likely it's because somebody is just doing something stupid, and people are stepping on each others toes. If the explanation is "this is a one-time issue brought on by xyz", then that's fine - sh*t happens. If it's something else, at least mention it. And if it keeps happening, something needs to be done. And in the end, I personally tend to always resolve the conflicts *without* really looking at the explanation, by just trying to figure it out on my own. I've had people send me incorrect resolution suggestions, and I've also occasionally just screwed up my own resolution. Having somebody elses explanations of what they did is a good sanity check that things went right (when their explanation matches mine), and is a good red flag about "maybe this is more complicated than I thought" when the explanations and results don't match up. Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html