Unintended commit?

Unintended commit?

[Claudio Martins]

 Hi,

 I noticed that commit 4e8a5201506423e0241202de1349422af4260296 on Linus' tree 
titled "[PKT_SCHED] netem: Orphan SKB when adding to queue." also touches the 
file "drivers/pci/quirks.c", which seems unrelated.

 Was this intentional? 
 If so, then I'm sorry for the noise...

 Best regards

Claudio Martins

Re: Unintended commit?

[Linus Torvalds]

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006, Claudio Martins wrote:
> 
>  I noticed that commit 4e8a5201506423e0241202de1349422af4260296 on Linus' tree 
> titled "[PKT_SCHED] netem: Orphan SKB when adding to queue." also touches the 
> file "drivers/pci/quirks.c", which seems unrelated.

Indeed. Thanks for noticing.

David, can you pls explain?

		Linus

Re: Unintended commit?

[David Miller]

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:13:52 -0700 (PDT)

> Indeed. Thanks for noticing.
> 
> David, can you pls explain?

Totally my mistake.

A PCI change a few days ago blows up Sparc64 so I kept putting in that
drivers/pci/quirks.c workaround in order for me to be able to test the
current tree.

I accidently commited it, again sorry.  Greg KH has a patch coming to
you soon which will move that VGA code back into x86/x86_64/IA64
specific areas and will fix the sparc64 problem properly.

I should make some modifications to my workflow so that I don't do
this again when I need to make local unrelated changes in order to
test the current tree.

When I'm grinding out a patch actively in my tree I go "git diff >diff"
and then I use a script called "mkcf" which runs diffstat on the
diff and gives me a file list, it's ugly, but here it is:

#!/bin/sh
diffstat -p 1 $* | grep -v changed | awk ' { print $1 } '

So I end up going:

1) edit files
2) git diff >diff
3) read diff
4) git commit $(mkcf diff)

Usually step #3 catches local changes I'm not intending to commit
and I just edit those out, and therefore they never end up being
committed.

Perhaps it would be cool if you could tell GIT "Look, I know I have
a change to foo.c, but it's a local hack and please act like it's
not there unless I try to do an operation where ignoring that change
is impossible, such as a merge."

The idea is that things like "git diff", "git update-index" etc.
would not show the change, but things like a "git pull" that would
reference the file with such changes would conflict.

Re: Unintended commit?

[Linus Torvalds]

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006, David Miller wrote:
> 
> I accidently commited it, again sorry.  Greg KH has a patch coming to
> you soon which will move that VGA code back into x86/x86_64/IA64
> specific areas and will fix the sparc64 problem properly.

Ok. I reverted that part, we'll get it sorted out properly with Greg's 
patches.

Claudio, thanks for noticing!

		Linus

Re: Unintended commit?

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> Perhaps it would be cool if you could tell GIT "Look, I know I have
> a change to foo.c, but it's a local hack and please act like it's
> not there unless I try to do an operation where ignoring that change
> is impossible, such as a merge."

When  I was solving that problem, I ended up with two repositories:

clean-linus <-> linux-pavels-hacks <-> linux.

That behaves mostly as you want it...

							Pavel
-- 
Thanks for all the (sleeping) penguins.

Re: Unintended commit?

[Jan Engelhardt]

>
>I should make some modifications to my workflow so that I don't do
>this again when I need to make local unrelated changes in order to
>test the current tree.
>
>When I'm grinding out a patch actively in my tree I go "git diff >diff"
>and then I use a script called "mkcf" which runs diffstat on the
>diff and gives me a file list, it's ugly, but here it is:
>
>#!/bin/sh
>diffstat -p 1 $* | grep -v changed | awk ' { print $1 } '
>
>So I end up going:
>
>1) edit files
>2) git diff >diff
>3) read diff
>4) git commit $(mkcf diff)
>
>Usually step #3 catches local changes I'm not intending to commit
>and I just edit those out, and therefore they never end up being
>committed.
>
>Perhaps it would be cool if you could tell GIT "Look, I know I have
>a change to foo.c, but it's a local hack and please act like it's
>not there unless I try to do an operation where ignoring that change
>is impossible, such as a merge."

I prefer to explicitly commit all changes, i.e.:

  edit files
  `svn diff` or `svn diff | lsdiff` or both
  `svn ci -m foo a/b.c c/d.c` etc.

might be a little lot to type, but it usually helps committing the right stuff.

(Yes, it is intentional that I wrote svn instead of git.)


	-`J'
--