Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 6 Jun 2008 01:30:58 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: Tree for June 5 |
| |
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 18:22:06 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi Andrew, > > On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 01:01:49 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > > Well yes - I just bodged it by hand then unbodged it later. But we > > have a bisection break there. Admittedly a minor one, unless the bug > > you're bisecting for requires that kprobes be configured. But it would > > be nice to squish it. > > > > I hope Ingo isn't following this > > once-you've-checked-it-in-you-can't-fix-it stupidity :( > > Its a break caused by the merge of the ftrace tree into the linux-next > tree (because at the point I merge the ftrace tree, linux-next contains > the rcu tree which has moves stuff into rculist.h), so logically that > patch should become part of the merge commit. If it was part of the > merge, you could never bisect to a point where you got this build > breakage. > > Each tree is fine on its own if you go one step back from the merge.
Well OK. But patches in fact _do_ go into Linux as a single linear stream of commits. But the whole git model ignores that reality and here we see the result.
And saying "git doesn't work like that - you don't understand" just doesn't cut it. It is a tool's job to permit humans to implement the workflow which they wish to follow. Not to go and force them into doing something inferior.
Sigh.
/usualrant
| |