[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwXj2ELrTDSgFfSC2Usz99-24uFSznAP34feJiCttwayQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 17:51:07 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Junio C Hamano <gitster@...ox.com>,
Git Mailing List <git@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] use generic pci_iomap on all architectures
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 08:39:16 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> So why does you pull request refer to "commit
>> 805a6af8dba5dfdd35ec35dc52ec0122400b2610", I wonder? Is that just what
>> "git request-pull" produced?
>
> I see, "git request-pull" just puts in whatever you specify on the
> command line rather than the merge-base ...
.. and that is a fairly silly misfeature, since it makes the "since
commit xyz" largely meaningless.
I suspect we really should make "git request-pull" show the merge
base(s) as the "since commit", because that way the output of git
request-pull is "stable", and doesn't depend on what particular random
state you've synced up to since.
Junio, I think the patch would be as simple as the attached - totally
untested - one-liner? Comments?
Linus
View attachment "patch.diff" of type "text/x-patch" (486 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists