On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 12:47:46PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Stafford, > > On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:04:46 +0900 Stafford Horne <sho...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Thank's I knew about this conflict but I was not sure the best way to > > handle, I > > was/am going to rebase the openrisc/for-next branch onto 5.11-rc5 once > > released. > > I will resolve the conflict during the rebase so you should be able to drop > > the > > conflict patch after that. > > Its a pretty trivial conflict, so I wouldn't do the rebase just for this.
Alright, I will not rebase. > > The issue is I had a fix that went straight to 5.11. Should I usually put > > these > > kind of fixes on my for-next and my fixes branches in parallel, that way I > > can > > resolve conflicts on for-next before hand? > > I notice that the version in Linus' tree was merged from a separate > branch. The easiest that to do is for you to merge that same branch > into your for-next branch - that way you only get your own changes, not > any other stuff that might be in Linus' tree. > > > I don't usually do that as in my mind for next is for 5.12 and fixes for > > 5.11 go > > straight to 5.11. Also, I don't like putting the same patch in 2 queues. > > But > > if I got any advice on how to avoid this in the future it would be > > appreciated. > > Like I said, just merge your fixes branch into you for-next branch > when/if you think the fixes are important for further development, or > the conflicts become to great. That sounds like a good idea. Let me do that. > I can also add you fixes branch to linux-next if you like (I already > have 86 other "fixes" branches). I think that should be alright for now, I'll maintain merging the fixes branch myself when I think it's needed. Thank you, -Stafford
