On 21-05-08 15:48, Jaroslav Kysela wrote: > On Wed, 21 May 2008, Rene Herman wrote: >> It's "worse" than that; rebasing is designed for a _private_ development >> model. git-rebase is a very handy tool for people like myself (people >> without a downstream that is) and it basically enables the quilt model >> of a stack of patches on top of git but public trees that have people >> pulling from them should generally not rebase or everyone who _is_ >> pulling finds a different tree each time. > > I don't see big obstacles with this model. You can do changes in your > local tree and when 'git pull' fails from the subsystem tree, pull new > subsystem tree to a new branch and do rebasing in your local tree, too. > > Rebasing can keep the subsystem tree more clean I think. It's only > about to settle an appropriate workflow. I'm also still frequently trying to figure out an/the efficient way of using GIT but it does seem it's not just a matter of "pure downstream" (which I do believe ALSA has few enough of to not make this be a huge problem). For example linux-next is also going to want to pull in ALSA and say it does, finds a trivial conflict with the trivial tree that it also pulls in and fixes things up. If you rebase that which linux-next pulls from I believe it will have to redo the fix next time it pulls from you since it's getting all those new changesets. I guess this can be avoided by just not rebasing that which linux-next is pulling... and I in fact don't even know if linux-next does any conflict resolution itself, trivial or otherwise. <shrug> I'll see how things work out. Rene. _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
