At Wed, 21 May 2008 16:40:37 +0200, Rene Herman wrote: > > 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. I thought linux-next does fresh merges at each time, thus it doesn't matter whether a subsystem tree is rebased or not... Takashi _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
