From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: corbet@lwn.net
Cc: workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Subject: [PATCH docs] docs: maintainers: suggest including lore link for conflicts known to linux-next
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2023 16:04:17 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230713230417.1504773-1-kuba@kernel.org> (raw)
I'm not completely sure what is the best practice for notifying Linus
about conflicts which have already been resolved in linux-next.
I presume they are a no-op to him, so maybe we shouldn't even call
them out?
That's the question I was hoping to answer by reading this doc :)
For the small-time maintainers who aren't Linus including a lore link
to the resolution from linux-next is the most optimal way in my experience.
Sometimes people put the whole resolution diff into the PR message
which occasionally confuses merge prep scripts making a mess of things...
If Stephen already resolved the problem, just include the link.
Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
---
Documentation/maintainer/rebasing-and-merging.rst | 6 +++++-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/maintainer/rebasing-and-merging.rst b/Documentation/maintainer/rebasing-and-merging.rst
index 85800ce95ae5..4134e63528fe 100644
--- a/Documentation/maintainer/rebasing-and-merging.rst
+++ b/Documentation/maintainer/rebasing-and-merging.rst
@@ -175,7 +175,11 @@ So what should a maintainer do when there is a conflict between their
subsystem branch and the mainline? The most important step is to warn
Linus in the pull request that the conflict will happen; if nothing else,
that demonstrates an awareness of how your branch fits into the whole. For
-especially difficult conflicts, create and push a *separate* branch to show
+conflicts already resolved in linux-next include a lore link to the posted
+resolution.
+
+For especially difficult conflicts and when linux-next resolution is
+not available, create and push a *separate* branch to show
how you would resolve things. Mention that branch in your pull request,
but the pull request itself should be for the unmerged branch.
--
2.41.0
next reply other threads:[~2023-07-13 23:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-13 23:04 Jakub Kicinski [this message]
2023-07-14 0:47 ` [PATCH docs] docs: maintainers: suggest including lore link for conflicts known to linux-next Linus Torvalds
2023-07-14 3:16 ` Theodore Ts'o
2023-07-14 15:44 ` Jakub Kicinski
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20230713230417.1504773-1-kuba@kernel.org \
--to=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=workflows@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).