Re: x86/x86-64 merge for 2.6.19

["Paolo Ciarrocchi" <paolo.ciarrocchi@gmail.com>]

On 9/26/06, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006, Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote:
> >
> > out of curiosity, wouldn't be better to sync with Andrew via git?
> > Why via plain patches?
> >
> > What am I missing?
>
> I think you're just missing that we've become so used to it that it's just
> easier than all the alternatives.

Umh.. good point ;)

> Also, the way we do things with Andrew actually has a few advantages over
> a straight git-to-git merge. In particular, when Andrew sends me his
> current stable quilt queue, every email is also Cc'd to the people who
> sent it to him originally or were otherwise involved.

I forgot that Andrew is CC'ing the "author" of the patch when he sends
to you the email.

> So the very act of transferring the patches from one tree to another
> sometimes produces an extra acknowledgement cycle, and we've had patches
> that got NACK'ed at that point because it was an older version of the
> patch etc.
>
> Now, I suspect this is more of an advantage with Andrew's tree than with
> most other trees (most other trees tend to have a much stricter focus),
> and perhaps equally importantly, it also wouldn't really work very well if
> _everybody_ did it, so I personally believe this is one of those
> situations where what's good for _one_ case may not actually be wonderful
> for _all_ cases.
>
> I think it's worked out pretty well, no?

Oh yes! I just did the mistake to think that the work flow of Andrew
was similar to the one used by Andy. And that's clearly a mistake.

Thanks for the clarification.

Ciao,
-- 
Paolo
http://paolo.ciarrocchi.googlepages.com
http://picasaweb.google.com/paolo.ciarrocchi