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