From: Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant <kevin@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk>
To: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
Cc: Andy Furniss <adf.lists@gmail.com>,
Cake List <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Cake] overheads or rate calculation changed?
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 12:58:14 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <10958FF4-DEEC-4546-BE6D-5B2F382A8393@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJq5cE0BDVS15f0i=oJgA_-DywPq-NaNXgxB1awxSe0T4YBN4A@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1111 bytes --]
> On 22 Dec 2017, at 10:00, Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Git seems to regularly get confused when similar code changes occur in parallel in different branches. In this case, I had the original version of ingress mode while the public tree had the reconstructed version - almost identical, but still constituting a merge conflict. I really don't know why the 'pad' thing wasn't similarly flagged.
>
> If there's an easy way to simply accept the remote version of the file as correct and not bother generating a merge commit, I couldn't find it.
I’ve been unable to discern what distribution/branch/merge strategy is being aimed for here so can’t offer constructive advice. Git has always done what it’s supposed to for me, that may have been not quite what I expected but it’s always been logical.
>
> In any case I need to thoroughly review all this code before I can sign off on it. That'll also give me an opportunity to sort out the stats somehow.
>
> - Jonathan Morton
Cheers,
Kevin D-B
012C ACB2 28C6 C53E 9775 9123 B3A2 389B 9DE2 334A
[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-22 12:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-18 20:32 Andy Furniss
2017-12-21 0:54 ` Andy Furniss
2017-12-22 6:38 ` Jonathan Morton
2017-12-22 7:58 ` Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
[not found] ` <CAJq5cE3e-CbJ8X_Bpu3AhwbVmq-yD89HGe7rSNMTYqj+KSaBUg@mail.gmail.com>
2017-12-22 10:00 ` Jonathan Morton
2017-12-22 12:58 ` Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant [this message]
2017-12-22 15:55 ` Dave Taht
2017-12-22 23:38 ` Andy Furniss
2017-12-23 9:41 ` Sebastian Moeller
2017-12-23 9:59 ` Andy Furniss
2017-12-23 12:55 ` Sebastian Moeller
2017-12-23 13:11 ` Ryan Mounce
2017-12-23 14:21 ` Sebastian Moeller
2017-12-23 21:03 ` Sebastian Moeller
2017-12-23 21:20 ` Jonathan Morton
2017-12-24 10:34 ` Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
2017-12-24 10:39 ` Jonathan Morton
2017-12-24 10:46 ` Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant
2017-12-24 12:19 ` Sebastian Moeller
2017-12-24 12:14 ` Sebastian Moeller
2018-01-06 20:44 ` Jonathan Morton
2018-01-06 22:46 ` Sebastian Moeller
2018-01-07 0:33 ` Jonathan Morton
2018-01-07 8:19 ` Sebastian Moeller
2018-01-07 15:21 ` Jonathan Morton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/cake.lists.bufferbloat.net/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=10958FF4-DEEC-4546-BE6D-5B2F382A8393@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk \
--to=kevin@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk \
--cc=adf.lists@gmail.com \
--cc=cake@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--cc=chromatix99@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox