On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:18:47PM -0400, David Miller wrote: > From: Leon Romanovsky <l...@leon.nu> > Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 02:38:28 +0300 > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 09:37:54AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > >> On 03/23/2016 06:57 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > >> > On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 02:37:08PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> >> So the *best* situation would be: > >> >> > >> >> - your two groups talk it over, and figure out what the common commits > >> >> are > >> >> > >> >> - you put those common commits as a "base" branch in git > >> >> > >> >> - you ask the two upper-level maintainers to both pull that base branch > >> >> > >> >> - you then make sure that you send the later patches (whether as > >> >> emailed patches or as pull requests) based on top of that base branch. > >> > > >> > Hi David and Doug, > >> > > >> > Are you OK with the approach suggested by Linus? > >> > We are eager to know it, so we will adopt it as soon > >> > as possible in our development flow. > >> > > >> > The original thread [1]. > >> > > >> > [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.rdma/34907 > >> > > >> > Thanks. > >> > > >> > >> I'm fine with it. Since I happen to use topic branches to build my > >> for-next from anyway, I might need to be the one that Dave pulls from > >> versus the other way around. > > > > Resending to linux-netdev. > > > > David, > > Can you please express your opinion about Linus's suggestion to > > eliminate merge conflicts in Mellanox related products? > > Sure, sounds fine.
Thank you, I appreciate a lot Doug's and your openness and willingness to help us eliminate the future merge obstacles.
