On 21-05-08 16:52, Takashi Iwai wrote: > At Wed, 21 May 2008 16:40:37 +0200, > Rene Herman wrote: >> 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... Let's ask... Fresh merges at each release boundary certainly but if it drops/remerges each subsystem when a bug in its for-next branch is found (a supposedly non rare occurence) all the hopefully hundreds or even thousands of linux-next pullers/testers would seem to have to deal with all those completely new merges everytime as well. I'd hope linux-next during a single release would just pull in the one fix (the subsystem's for-linus branch can still fold it in). Rene. _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
