| Message ID | 20230623122037.16eb8bec@canb.auug.org.au (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-x86 tree with the arm-soc tree | expand |
Hi all, On Fri, 23 Jun 2023 12:20:37 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-x86 tree got a conflict in: > > Documentation/process/maintainer-handbooks.rst > > between commit: > > 425d827ef91e ("Documentation/process: add soc maintainer handbook") > > from the arm-soc tree and commit: > > 63e2f55cabed ("Documentation/process: Add a maintainer handbook for KVM x86") > > from the kvm-x86 tree. > > I fixed it up (and sorted the entries - see below) and can carry the > fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, > but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream > maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want > to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to > minimise any particularly complex conflicts. > > > diff --cc Documentation/process/maintainer-handbooks.rst > index fe24cb665fb7,d12cbbe2b7df..000000000000 > --- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-handbooks.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-handbooks.rst > @@@ -15,6 -15,6 +15,7 @@@ Contents > :numbered: > :maxdepth: 2 > > - maintainer-tip > - maintainer-netdev > + maintainer-kvm-x86 > + maintainer-netdev > + maintainer-soc > + maintainer-tip This is now a conflict between the kvm tree and the arm-soc tree.
diff --cc Documentation/process/maintainer-handbooks.rst index fe24cb665fb7,d12cbbe2b7df..000000000000 --- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-handbooks.rst
Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-x86 tree got a conflict in: Documentation/process/maintainer-handbooks.rst between commit: 425d827ef91e ("Documentation/process: add soc maintainer handbook") from the arm-soc tree and commit: 63e2f55cabed ("Documentation/process: Add a maintainer handbook for KVM x86") from the kvm-x86 tree. I fixed it up (and sorted the entries - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts.