[U-Boot] Non-trivial merge conflicts between u-boot/master and u-boot-arm/master

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Hi Tom,

On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 14:50:09 -0500, Tom Rini <trini at ti.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 06:49:01PM +0100, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> > 
> > On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 11:47:35 -0500, Tom Rini <trini at ti.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 02:11:15PM +0100, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > > 
> > > > While preparing my pull request from ARM to mainline, I've tried a
> > > > merge of u-boot-arm/master and u-boot/master and had to solve a few
> > > > non-trivial conflicts due to the kbuild stuff.
> > > > 
> > > > I wonder how I should proceed now. Should I simply submit the PR and
> > > > warn Tom that conflicts will arise, and indicate how I solved them?
> > > > I'd do (and I've done) that for trivial cases, but for non-trivial
> > > > changes it seems error-prone.
> > > > 
> > > > Plus, I have already performed the resolutions, so why waster Tom's
> > > > time? I could forward u-boot-arm/master to the merge commit, then
> > > > submit a fast-forward PR to u-boot/master.
> > > > 
> > > > But then, the changes I did will remain un-reviewed or maybe even
> > > > unnoticed.
> > > > 
> > > > I also thought I could treat this as a normal patch and submit it to the
> > > > ML... Only git won't generate a "patch" for merge commits, and I don't
> > > > know how patchwork will react to this.
> > > > 
> > > > So... any advice?
> > > 
> > > Include the resolution in the PR, and include the not-a-diff-exactly
> > > that git will generate, include that in the PR.
> > 
> > Which 'not-a-diff-exactly' do you mean?
> 
> Well, for example 'git show c0bb110' shows how
> arch/blackfin/cpu/Makefile was merged as a conflict I had to fixup.  The
> ' -' lines are how the blackfin tree was, the ' +' lines are how master
> was and '- ' is what came out from the blackfin side and '++' is what
> came in with my resolution (saved to master) (the '  ' lines are common
> to both).  It's not a diff exactly but it's understandable.

Thanks -- didn't know about 'git show' applied to merge commits. We
live and learn. :)

PR on its way.

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.