linux-kernel - Re: [alsa-devel] HG -> GIT migration

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 21 May 2008 17:29:56 +0200
From:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>
To:	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
CC:	Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
	ALSA development <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] HG -> GIT migration

On 21-05-08 16:52, Takashi Iwai wrote:

> At Wed, 21 May 2008 16:40:37 +0200,
> Rene Herman wrote:

>> I'm also still frequently trying to figure out an/the efficient way of 
>> using GIT but it does seem it's not just a matter of "pure downstream" 
>> (which I do believe ALSA has few enough of to not make this be a huge 
>> problem). For example linux-next is also going to want to pull in ALSA 
>> and say it does, finds a trivial conflict with the trivial tree that it 
>> also pulls in and fixes things up. If you rebase that which linux-next 
>> pulls from I believe it will have to redo the fix next time it pulls 
>> from you since it's getting all those new changesets.
>>
>> I guess this can be avoided by just not rebasing that which linux-next 
>> is pulling... and I in fact don't even know if linux-next does any 
>> conflict resolution itself, trivial or otherwise.
> 
> I thought linux-next does fresh merges at each time, thus it doesn't
> matter whether a subsystem tree is rebased or not...

Let's ask...

Fresh merges at each release boundary certainly but if it drops/remerges 
each subsystem when a bug in its for-next branch is found (a supposedly 
non rare occurence) all the hopefully hundreds or even thousands of 
linux-next pullers/testers would seem to have to deal with all those 
completely new merges everytime as well. I'd hope linux-next during a 
single release would just pull in the one fix (the subsystem's for-linus 
branch can still fold it in).

Rene.

--
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/