Message-Id: <1202832003.3137.13.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:00:03 -0600
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:	Benny Halevy <bhalevy@...asas.com>
Cc:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream  :-))

On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 17:32 +0200, Benny Halevy wrote:
> On Feb. 12, 2008, 17:07 +0200, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 21:53 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> >>> this is why you need specific trees for just the API change, and these
> >>> need to EXPLICITLY go first before EVERYTHING ELSE. Yes this needs a
> >>> bit of coordination, but it's the only way.
> >> Even then, it will not work.
> >>
> >> Again, Roland isn't going to want to always pull in my driver tree just
> >> to build his tree.  He wants to, and needs to do his own development
> >> effort.
> >>
> >> But when we merge them together, there would be problems.
> >>
> >> So, you can't just "drop" the IB tree.
> >> You can't just "drip" my tree.
> >>
> >> Where do you "fix this up" at?  I can send a patch for the IB tree, but
> >> Roland can't put it in his tree, and I can't put it in my tree, it needs
> >> to go _after_ both of our trees.
> > 
> > Actually, we had exactly this issue with the SCSI bidirectional patches:
> > They depended on the sg_table patches in block.  The solution I adopted
> > was two merge trees:  One to go in immediately with no dependencies
> > (scsi-misc-2.6) and the other based on the pieces of block (so it would
> > compile and apply) to go in mid way through the merge round after block
> > (scsi-bidi-2.6).  What I did was keep rebasing the bidi tree until I
> > could see there was nothing other than a plane base before merging it.
> 
> My take on this, in retrospect, is that the code should probably have been
> developed in one branch off of one of the trees, or maybe even better in a
> third tree.

For your development, possibly, but not for my merge ... there were a
lot of other patches besides yours in the bidi tree (it was, in fact,
misnamed, but I thought at the time I created it it would only contain
the bidi patches).

> The point is that the structure of git trees followed the organizational
> structure rather than the problem at hand and if contributions coming
> from different trees depend on each other, staging branches should be created
> in the integration tree for working out the conflicts and when ready,
> the integrated branches should be pushed towards the tree's trunk.

Actually, I think you'll find the problem is that we can't build an
integration tree that's both stable and long lived, and hence you can't
base anything off it that requires a long lived base.

So, the way I worked for your patches was to use the -mc tree to
identify my conflicts, and only include the actual conflicting branches
as a basis for the scsi-bidi tree beofre fixing up the patches.  I then
actually used the -mc tree as a canary to tell me when to rebase.

James


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists