lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Aug]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] block/IO bits for 2.6.36-rc1
On 08/07/2010 05:15 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 12:34 AM, Jens Axboe <jaxboe@fusionio.com> wrote:
>>
>> OK, so a question on this. Say a bug surfaces in the middle of the
>> release and we push in a change to fix that at 2.6.36-rc3 time. This
>> same patch will not apply directly to the branch holding 2.6.37 patches
>> due to code reshuffling or whatnot. How do you want that handled? I
>> can't pull in your branch and resolve it. The merge conflict may not be
>> visible to you until 2.6.36 is released and I want to offload the
>> patches to you, but it will be visible in linux-next pretty much
>> immediately.
>
> So I think there's a few possible answers to that.
>
> One is the one I outlined in my previous email: merge the next -rc
> tag, and explain why you merged it in the commit message. That not
> only makes the merge commit message be way more informative ("Merge
> commit v2.6.3x-rcy" rather than "Merge branch 'master'"), but it also
> automatically acts as a "rate limiter" for the merges.
>
> Now, that may cause problems for linux-next for a few days too, since
> I think linux-next always starts from some random tree-of-the-day of
> mine. That itself may be more indicative of a linux-next problem,
> though. It might well make sense to base linux-next itself on the
> latest tagged release rather than on some random daily thing (and if
> the things that get merged _into_ linux-next then are based on a
> random daily thing and bring linux-next forward, then that's a problem
> with the trees getting merged - they shouldn't be doing that either).
>
> The other possibility is for you to do throw-away merges just for
> linux-next. That way _you_ do the merge (not Stephen or one of the
> linux-next helpers), but the merge is going only into for-next, not
> into your for-2.6.36 branch. "git rerere" will help you re-do the same
> merge for future for-next trees - the same way linux-next already
> generally only needs to do the merge resolution once.

I can easily do it for for-next, merge things together there, test, and
then push it out. That will save Stephen the hassle. I think that basing
linux-next off the latest -rc is a good idea, instead of it being random
snap of the day. That should make his job easier as well.

I like the idea of just keeping the for-2.6.X branch based off 2.6.X-1
the whole cycle, since it means that downstream folks never get anything
when pulling my tree that wasn't done or merged there.

> Then, when you actually want to send it to me, at that point (if it's
> a really complicated merge and you know it's too complex for me), you
> can do one final merge into 'for-linus' before you send me the pull
> request. Again, git rerere will help you re-use your previous merge
> resolutions.
>
> Or don't merge at all when you send it to me, and only do the merge if
> I then reply with "ok, that's too complicated for me".
>
> I will _never_ complain about you sending me something I can't merge.
> I may throw it back at you, but I won't complain about you trying to
> give me merge work. I really do like knowing about the conflicts.
>
> Of course, if I do the merge conflict resolution I may then see
> something odd and complain about it. Something I might not have even
> noticed if it hadn't been pointed out to me by the conflict ;)

On the merges, I just prefer to do them myself since I think I'm in the
best possible position to do it. Plus the non-easy merges tend to be
interesting to do, at least it's a less mundane part of assembling
peoples bits and pieces together.

--
Jens Axboe


Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, its contents and any attachments to it are confidential to the intended recipient, and may contain information that is privileged and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender and destroy the original e-mail message and any attachments (and any copies that may have been made) from your system or otherwise. Any unauthorized use, copying, disclosure or distribution of this information is strictly prohibited.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-08-08 13:03    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans