From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935866AbYEUOwg (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2008 10:52:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759004AbYEUOw1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2008 10:52:27 -0400 Received: from ns1.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:56290 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758578AbYEUOw0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2008 10:52:26 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 16:52:24 +0200 Message-ID: From: Takashi Iwai To: Rene Herman Cc: Jaroslav Kysela , ALSA development , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] HG -> GIT migration In-Reply-To: <48343465.2030905@keyaccess.nl> References: <200805211430.06653.linux@audioscience.com> <483415E7.5080402@keyaccess.nl> <48341DF5.4090307@keyaccess.nl> <48343465.2030905@keyaccess.nl> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.7 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Sanj=F2?=) APEL/10.6 MULE XEmacs/21.5 (beta28) (fuki) (+CVS-20070806) (i386-suse-linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org At Wed, 21 May 2008 16:40:37 +0200, Rene Herman wrote: > > On 21-05-08 15:48, Jaroslav Kysela wrote: > > > On Wed, 21 May 2008, Rene Herman wrote: > > >> It's "worse" than that; rebasing is designed for a _private_ development > >> model. git-rebase is a very handy tool for people like myself (people > >> without a downstream that is) and it basically enables the quilt model > >> of a stack of patches on top of git but public trees that have people > >> pulling from them should generally not rebase or everyone who _is_ > >> pulling finds a different tree each time. > > > > I don't see big obstacles with this model. You can do changes in your > > local tree and when 'git pull' fails from the subsystem tree, pull new > > subsystem tree to a new branch and do rebasing in your local tree, too. > > > > Rebasing can keep the subsystem tree more clean I think. It's only > > about to settle an appropriate workflow. > > I'm also still frequently trying to figure out an/the efficient way of > using GIT but it does seem it's not just a matter of "pure downstream" > (which I do believe ALSA has few enough of to not make this be a huge > problem). For example linux-next is also going to want to pull in ALSA > and say it does, finds a trivial conflict with the trivial tree that it > also pulls in and fixes things up. If you rebase that which linux-next > pulls from I believe it will have to redo the fix next time it pulls > from you since it's getting all those new changesets. > > I guess this can be avoided by just not rebasing that which linux-next > is pulling... and I in fact don't even know if linux-next does any > conflict resolution itself, trivial or otherwise. I thought linux-next does fresh merges at each time, thus it doesn't matter whether a subsystem tree is rebased or not... Takashi