Re: [PATCH] 2.6.0 - Watchdog patches

[Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de>]

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> I do end up taking patches that have this syndrome if it looks like the 
> pain of not taking the messy revision history is larger than the pain of 
> just fixing it. Sometimes it's hard to avoid.
> 
> But most of the time the proper thing to do is to just not merge
> unnecessarily - if something is pending for a while, Bk does the merge
> correctly anyway, so you can just leave it pending and have me pull from
> an old tree (after you have verified in your own tree that the pull will 
> succeed and do the right thing).
> 
> That way it ends up being trivial to see where/when the changes happened.

Not being very used to BK, does that mean I have several trees around:

1. the official release tree
2. an "old tree" with my local change that I'm forwarding
3. a temporary test tree to see if the merge would succeed, which
   I'll get by cloning (1) and then pulling from (2)?

Well, talk about FAAAAAAST drives (10,025/min SCSI kind) unless you have
time to waste on all those BK consistency checks (which are, of course,
what #3 is all about).

Or am I missing some obvious short cut?

-- 
Matthias Andree

Encrypt your mail: my GnuPG key ID is 0x052E7D95