Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 30 Dec 2003 01:49:07 +0100 | From | Matthias Andree <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |