From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265722AbUH1AKP (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Aug 2004 20:10:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267850AbUH1AKP (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Aug 2004 20:10:15 -0400 Received: from adsl-63-197-226-105.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net ([63.197.226.105]:14210 "EHLO cheetah.davemloft.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265722AbUH1AKJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Aug 2004 20:10:09 -0400 Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:09:51 -0700 From: "David S. Miller" To: Dave Airlie Cc: sam@ravnborg.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: maintaining DRM and using bitkeeper.. Message-Id: <20040827170951.3ad3900e.davem@davemloft.net> In-Reply-To: References: <20040827173807.GB7445@mars.ravnborg.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.12 (GTK+ 1.2.10; sparc-unknown-linux-gnu) X-Face: "_;p5u5aPsO,_Vsx"^v-pEq09'CU4&Dc1$fQExov$62l60cgCc%FnIwD=.UF^a>?5'9Kn[;433QFVV9M..2eN.@4ZWPGbdi<=?[:T>y?SD(R*-3It"Vj:)"dP Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 00:54:06 +0100 (IST) Dave Airlie wrote: > This is my main issue with using bitkeeper vs separate patches, if I check > the macro conversion into bitkeeper as separate patches each removing a > couple of inter-related macros (this is my intention... it is what I did > in the DRM CVS tree) and I ask Linus to pull it from a tree, will it not > look like one big patch (albeit in a number of changesets...) No, this will look perfectly fine. This is exactly how things are supposed to work. When you ask for a pull, you can just concatenate the individual changesets as patches, and it looks really nice. That is what I do when I send a pull request to Marcelo or Linus.