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]

Message-Id: <20080522112412.4a8406fd.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:	Thu, 22 May 2008 11:24:12 +1000
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>
Cc:	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, 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>
Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] HG -> GIT migration

Hi Rene,

On Wed, 21 May 2008 17:29:56 +0200 Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl> wrote:
>
> 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).

Linux-next is rebuilt every day based on Linus' current kernel.  I merge
all the trees I have been told about and fixup minor conflicts (sometimes
reverting commits, sometimes applying patches).  So everyday, linux-next
is completely new.  I do not care if the trees I am merging get rebased.

I have only had a couple of occasions when the merge conflicts were so
bad that I had to drop a whole tree, but they were fixed up the next day.

Linux-next has only one downstream - Andrew's mm tree and he bases on a
particular day's linux-next tree each time he rebuilds mm.  Testers just
need to take the complete tree (which isn't too bad if you are using git
since all the linux-next trees share a lot of objects).

Does that answer your question?
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@...b.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped