lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-))
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:43:14 -0800
Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 08:31:46PM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:21:33 -0800
> > Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > The maintainer will be notified. I hope to provide some clue
> > > > as to what the conflict is with, but probably not initially.
> > > >
> > > > I will attempt to build the tree between each merge (and a
> > > > failed build will again cause the offending tree to be dropped).
> > >
> > > This is going to get really interesting, especially when (not if)
> > > we do more global api changes. Look at the last round of kobject
> > > changes. That touched a lot of different places, and other trees
> > > ended up not building because of it, because I changed apis and
> > > they had added new code based on the old apis.
> > >
> > > I think the only way to fix this is not going to just "drop the
> > > tree" like you are suggesting, but to let both people know (the
> > > person who caused the change, and the person who's tree broke
> > > after the merge), and then either add a "fixup patch" for the
> > > build like Andrew has been doing, or disabling something from the
> > > build section.
> > >
> >
> > in my experience, the only chance you have is doing API changes as
> > first in the set of changes, and then hoping (making) all other
> > trees use the new APIs. Any other order just turns into an
> > impossible mismash.
>
> I agree, and that's what I do.
>
> The problem is, the API change is still in my tree. So, if for
> example, the IB tree goes and adds some new functionality before my
> API changes have landed, they need to use the "old" API in order for
> them to be able to test and build things on their own. Then, when
> the -next tree merges everything together, the IB tree breaks the
> build, not my driver tree.
>
> It's those "who goes first" type things that end up being the cause
> of a lot of Andrew's headaches I think :)
>

this is why you need specific trees for just the API change, and these
need to EXPLICITLY go first before EVERYTHING ELSE. Yes this needs a bit of coordination,
but it's the only way.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-02-12 06:21    [W:0.267 / U:4.900 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site