lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] 2.6.0 - Watchdog patches
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> I do end up taking patches that have this syndrome if it looks like the
> pain of not taking the messy revision history is larger than the pain of
> just fixing it. Sometimes it's hard to avoid.
>
> But most of the time the proper thing to do is to just not merge
> unnecessarily - if something is pending for a while, Bk does the merge
> correctly anyway, so you can just leave it pending and have me pull from
> an old tree (after you have verified in your own tree that the pull will
> succeed and do the right thing).
>
> That way it ends up being trivial to see where/when the changes happened.

Not being very used to BK, does that mean I have several trees around:

1. the official release tree
2. an "old tree" with my local change that I'm forwarding
3. a temporary test tree to see if the merge would succeed, which
I'll get by cloning (1) and then pulling from (2)?

Well, talk about FAAAAAAST drives (10,025/min SCSI kind) unless you have
time to waste on all those BK consistency checks (which are, of course,
what #3 is all about).

Or am I missing some obvious short cut?

--
Matthias Andree

Encrypt your mail: my GnuPG key ID is 0x052E7D95
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:59    [W:0.119 / U:0.448 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site