lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [May]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [alsa-devel] HG -> GIT migration
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.

<shrug>

I'll see how things work out.

Rene.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-05-21 16:41    [W:0.124 / U:0.764 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site