lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] 2.6.0 - Watchdog patches
    On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Linus Torvalds wrote:

    > I do end up taking patches that have this syndrome if it looks like the
    > pain of not taking the messy revision history is larger than the pain of
    > just fixing it. Sometimes it's hard to avoid.
    >
    > But most of the time the proper thing to do is to just not merge
    > unnecessarily - if something is pending for a while, Bk does the merge
    > correctly anyway, so you can just leave it pending and have me pull from
    > an old tree (after you have verified in your own tree that the pull will
    > succeed and do the right thing).
    >
    > That way it ends up being trivial to see where/when the changes happened.

    Not being very used to BK, does that mean I have several trees around:

    1. the official release tree
    2. an "old tree" with my local change that I'm forwarding
    3. a temporary test tree to see if the merge would succeed, which
    I'll get by cloning (1) and then pulling from (2)?

    Well, talk about FAAAAAAST drives (10,025/min SCSI kind) unless you have
    time to waste on all those BK consistency checks (which are, of course,
    what #3 is all about).

    Or am I missing some obvious short cut?

    --
    Matthias Andree

    Encrypt your mail: my GnuPG key ID is 0x052E7D95
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:59    [W:2.663 / U:0.268 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site