Re: [git patches] 2.6.x libata updates

["Randy.Dunlap" <rdunlap@xenotime.net>]

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 17:59:39 -0600 Rob Landley wrote:

> On Sunday 30 October 2005 16:36, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> > > Is this a viable option?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > There is no "ordering" in a distributed environment. We have things
> > happening in parallel, adn you can't really linearize the patches.
> 
> To clarify my thinking:
> 
> It doesn't matter what the ordering is, as long as A) the patches are 
> separated somehow, B) the resulting kernel from applying any initial subset 
> (patches 1-X in the series) has some reasonable chance to build and work.
> 
> Any arbitrary order is theoretically fine for (A).  Alphabetical by msgid or 
> sha1sum.  Or the order they appear in the changelog.
> 
> It's (B) that's the tricky bit, but not an insoluble problem.  "The order 
> Linux imported them into his tree" might give that.
> 
> > The closest you can get is "git bisect", which does the right thing.
> 
> Ok, so we've already got an order, whatever order git bisect puts them in.  
> (It doesn't have to be stable between releases, just a snapshot in time of a 
> set of individual patches which, cumulatively applied,would have the same 
> effect as the big rc1->rc2 diffs we've been getting.)
> 
> It doesn't sound like it would be _too_ hard to abuse the "git bisect" 
> mechanism to work out each possible bisection point between -rc1 and -rc1, 
> and if that can be done why can't it spit out the individual patches (with 
> descriptions) and cat them together?
> 
> Why wouldn't this work?

Why isn't there a linus.git ordering?  that can be made to work.

---
~Randy