Dear Scott Wood,
In message 4B27FAF1.1070405@freescale.com you wrote:
Yes, as part of the set of patches in the custodian tree. Why introduce conflicts by targetting an older tree? What if the new patch depends on previous patches that have gone into the custodian branch?
Custodians should send pull requests early and often to avoid big differences from building up.
I also don't see what is different about this patch than all the other patches on the list that target some custodian tree. If you're trying
Whenever I notice that a patch does not apply against "master" or "next" I will complain.
to change common practice, a general announcement would be nice rather than picking an arbitrary patch to make an example out of.
I've been making this very same statement before, whenever I noticed such an issue. So far, it happened only very infrequently.
So I should send a request immediately after every set of patches I apply, with no time for futher testing or review? What if the next branch hasn't opened yet?
You should never apply any patches to your custodian tree without review, and normally only after sufficient testing. If you are experimenting, then use a branch for this, but never do this on the maste rbranch of a custodian repo.
If I am supposed to test something, I don;t want to have to bother about some 30+ custodian trees hanging around, and finding the right branch in the right tree
I'm fine with asking people to specify exactly what branch/repo they had in mind for the patch.
Fine for you, but I don't accept this.
I don't want to have to resolve merge conflicts (inevitably sometimes incorrectly) in every patch because they were based on code which has been modified by a previously-applied patch.
In such a case the poster can / should ask the custodian to get his stuff pulled.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk