Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 05 Mar 2005 12:50:02 -0500 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: Linux 2.6.11.1 |
| |
Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sat, 5 Mar 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote: > >>Yup, BK could definitely handle that... > > > However, it's also true that the thing BK is _worst_ at is cherry-picking > things, and having a collection of stuff where somebody may end up vetoing > one patch and saying "remove that one".
In general, I agree. Andrew and I mentioned this to BitMover recently [though its certainly not a new comment], when they asked us why I had to occasionally blow away the netdev-2.6 tree, and reconstitute it from scratch.
> I love BK, but what BK does well is merging and maintaining trees full of > good stuff. What BK sucks at is experimental stuff where you don't know > whether something should be eventually used or not.
I use BitKeeper to maintain such a tree, "libata-dev". Most stuff in there will go upstream. Some stuff may never go upstream. Some stuff needs to simmer for a while before going upstream. So "change streams" get divided up locally:
[jgarzik@pretzel libata-dev]$ ls -FC adma/ atapi-enable/ janitor/ remove-one-fix/ adma-mwi/ bridge-detect/ passthru/ sata-sil-irq/ ahci-msi/ chs-support/ pdc2027x/ tf-cleanup/ ahci-tf-read/ ioctl-get-identity/ pdc20619/ via-6421/ iomap/ promise-sata-pata/
and then I cherrypick from that.
netdev-2.6 queue is maintained the same way. It's simply a merge tree composed of 40+ individual trees, all merged together.
Jeff
- 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/
| |