![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Coywolf Qi Hunt <qiyong@fc-cn.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 10:44:51PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Coywolf Qi Hunt <qiyong@fc-cn.com> wrote: > > > > > > Why don't use a -mm git tree? > > > > > > > Because everthing would take me 100x longer? > > Really? So does Linus? > Linus does a totally different thing from me. He reverts about one patch a month. I drop tens a day. He never _alters_ patches. 2.6.15-mm1 had about 200 patches which modify earlier patches and which get rolled up into the patch-which-they-modify before going upstream. He never alters the order of patches. etc. > > > > I'm looking into generating a pullable git tree for each -mm. Just as a > > convenience for people who can't type "ftp". > > That doesn't help much if it's only for each -mm. > If you make git commits for each each patch merged in, then > we can always run the `current' -mm git tree. Ah. If you're suggesting that the -mm git tree have _patches_ under git, and the way of grabbing the -mm tree is to pull everything and to then apply all the patches under the patches/ directory then yeah, that would work. But my tree at any random point in time is a random piece of doesn't-even-compile-let-alone-run crap, believe me. Often not all the patches even apply. I don't think there's much point in exposing people to something like that. - 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: 2006-01-11 08:23 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||