[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080213012521.GN27894@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:25:21 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jeff@...zik.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linville@...driver.com
Subject: Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-))
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 04:59:23PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Al Viro wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 07:16:50PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > > Ahem... Use of git-cherry-pick preserves commit information just fine.
> > >
> > > Not by default, at least (note they said "commiters", not "authors"):
> >
> > That's why you give it -r.
>
> Hmm. "-r" is a no-op to git-cherry-pick.
*duh*
OK, I plead the lack of caffeine when reading the original posting.
-r used to be "reproduce the changeset", but that _excludes_ committer.
Nevermind.
FWIW, I prefer to keep many branches and use suffix (.b<number>) to
distinguish between them. And cherry-pick/reorder/split/collapse
as needed on transition to the next one. At least that avoids
some problems for secondary trees - branches do not jump.
Since branches tend to be relatively small, they don't get conflicts
that open and I can postpone switch to new branch until it really
has to be done.
I don't know how to deal with tricky branch topology; every time when I
get to structure like <branch X is on top of Y+Z> it becomes very painful
to work on all these topics in parallel. For trees maintained by different
people... <shudder>
--
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