On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, James Bottomley wrote:So? I don't understand what you mean. This is true whether you pulled (a) or not. If you have any changes what-so-ever in your tree, if you pull in fixes from my tree, you'll get a merge. But if you mean that you cannot rebase (a), then yes. That was what I said. Rebases *do*not*work* (and fundamentally cannot work) in a distributed environment. But why would you merge with my tree in the first place? My tree won't normally have any conflicts or anything like that anyway. With a "Linux-next" tree, you'll see the conflicts if they occur (since *that* tree would merge!), and in that case you would say "now I need to merge Linus' tree just to resolve the conflicts!" But before that, merging my tree (or rebasing on top of it) is simply *wrong*. It has nothing to do with your SCSI development. I don't see the logic. You shouldn't need to rebase at all. I don't see why you claim that this makes rebasing more of a fact. It doesn't. It has no impact at all, except making rebasing _less_ possible! Linus --
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 006/196] Chinese: add translation of oops-tracing.txt |
| Andrew Morton | Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 -- sys_fallocate |
| Eric W. Biederman | [PATCH] nfs lockd reclaimer: Convert to kthread API |
| James Bottomley | Re: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
git: | |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 03/37] dccp: List management for new feature negotiation |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
