[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] KVM updates for the 3.4 merge window
    On 03/26/2012 06:21 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > * Avi Kivity <> wrote:
    > > Say a fix comes in which needs to be mainlined during -rc. So
    > > I put it in some other branch, to be sent off to Linus in a
    > > few days after maturing a little. Meanwhile developers see an
    > > incomplete tree, since that patch is not in it.
    > >
    > > Once Linus pulls, I can merge it back (or even before, if I'm
    > > reasonably certain it's not going to change), but it leaves a
    > > history of unneeded merges. Or we can do throwaway merges
    > > like tip.git.
    > We don't do throwaway merges in the -tip development branches
    > themselves, i.e. in tip:sched/core, tip:perf/core,
    > tip:timers/core, etc.
    > When a fix goes into tip:sched/urgent then until Linus merges it
    > it's not in tip:sched/core. 99% of the fixes don't *have to* go
    > into sched/core straight away.
    > In the odd case where there's some dependency, we can manually
    > merge it into tip:sched/core ahead of Linus pulling into an -rc.
    > Those rare merges are not a problem, and I explain the reason in
    > the merge commit itself.
    > If you look at:
    > gll v3.2..v3.3 | grep -E '/urgent.*/core'
    > you'll see that I only had to do it once in the previous cycle:
    > d6c1c49de577 Merge branch 'perf/urgent' into perf/core
    > and the changelog explains the background:
    > Merge reason: Add these cherry-picked commits so that future changes
    > on perf/core don't conflict.
    > it was a rare, oddball situation where we cherry-picked
    > perf/core changes into perf/urgent. Extra merges are perfectly
    > fine in that case.
    > The 'throwaway' tip:master branch you are probably referring to
    > is basically just a testing branch, a convenient merged tree of
    > the one dozen maintainer trees that are hosted in -tip. Since we
    > don't want to force Linus's hand of him being able to reject
    > individual trees we don't merge them properly - hence the
    > integrated tree is a throwaway tree in theory.
    > In practice I tend to throw it away only once per cycle, around
    > -rc1, once all pending trees went to Linus. tip:master is not
    > used for any Git based contribution work - it's for testing,
    > it's for people who want to work with patches - the commits
    > themselves always go into persistent non-rebasing, append-only
    > Git trees.
    > If we mess up bisectability we do a delta fix. When choosing
    > between somewhat better bisectability and a proper history that
    > others can rely on then proper history wins hands down.

    Okay, we'll adopt a similar workflow for the future.

    error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

     \ /
      Last update: 2012-03-27 09:33    [W:0.023 / U:8.168 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site