On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 06:21:57PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
There's no "preferred" approach really. I try to warn about cases like this early because the response rates to Greg's "FAILED" email seem to be low - by the time they are sent out people are done with that code and have moved on.
In this scenario, for exmaple, this patch would not apply to any stable tree because it depends on a previous patch in this series that was not tagged for stable. My hopes are that if I warn you about this early you can work around this (for example, by marking that prior patch for stable as well) so you won't need to deal with this patch again in a few weeks.
There's no need to change anything about your flow if it works for you.
Ok, I see. Yeah, it is just how I organize my work. Rather solve the patch dependency sudoku one time than two times.
When I maintain a subsystem I've thought that it is my responsibility to always do that and not wait someone else to do it for me :-) That is the responsibility part of the equation when you have the power to decide what gets in.
Right now I have two failed merges in my queue that I plan to take care of them next week.
Thanks, Sasha
/Jarkko