lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: [git pull] drm fixes
    From

    On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 08:24:48 -0800, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
    > But when you cherry-pick it from some random internal tree that nobody
    > will necessarily ever see, and that you don't even describe what it
    > is, it's only pure confusion. I do
    >
    > [torvalds@i5 linux]$ git show 6aa56062eaba67adfb247cded244fd877329588d
    > fatal: bad object 6aa56062eaba67adfb247cded244fd877329588d
    >
    > and so will everybody else. So from a documentation standpoint, you're
    > actually adding negative information. Please don't.

    My bad, I cherry-picked it from our public drm-intel-next tree and thought
    it wise to include the cross-reference to explain the duplication and
    merge conflicts and to provide some additional test history into the commit.
    Obviously not enough information.

    Is there a right approach here? I'm trying to be strict in that what is
    sent upstream in -fixes are purely known regression fixes, and to preserve
    test history on both -fixes and -next. That leads to situations like the
    above where we have a commit that does not appear to relevant to stable at
    first, but then is later shown to be required. How best to resolve the
    eventual conflict that will show up in your tree? Just cherry-pick and be
    dammed?
    -Chris

    --
    Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-11-12 18:25    [W:6.945 / U:0.028 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site