On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 04:59:51PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 05:56:50PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 04:52:24PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 03:06:05PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
I'm glad to take this through my char/misc tree, as that's where the other coresight changes flow through. So if no one else objects, I will do so...
Greg, did you end up pulling this after all? If not, Uwe produced a v2. I haven't merged v2 yet as I don't know what you've done.
I thought you merged this?
I took v1, and put it in a branch I've promised in the past not to rebase/rewind. Uwe is now asking for me to take a v2 or apply a patch on top.
The only reason to produce an "immutable" branch is if it's the basis for some dependent work and you need that branch merged into other people's trees... so the whole "lets produce a v2" is really odd workflow... I'm confused about what I should do, and who has to be informed which option I take.
I'm rather lost here too.
Sorry to have cause this confusion. After I saw that my initial tag missed to adapt a driver I wanted to make it easy for you to fix the situation. So I created a patch to fix it and created a second tag with the patch squashed in. Obviously only one of them have to be picked and I hoped you (= Russell + Greg) would agree which option to pick.
My preference would be if you both pick up v2 of the tag to yield a history that is bisectable without build problems, but if Russell (who already picked up the broken tag) considers his tree immutable and so isn't willing to rebase, then picking up the patch is the way to go.
I suggest that Russell descides which option he wants to pick and tells Greg to do the same!?
Best regards Uwe