Hi Rene, On Wed, 21 May 2008 17:29:56 +0200 Rene Herman <rene.herman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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). Linux-next is rebuilt every day based on Linus' current kernel. I merge all the trees I have been told about and fixup minor conflicts (sometimes reverting commits, sometimes applying patches). So everyday, linux-next is completely new. I do not care if the trees I am merging get rebased. I have only had a couple of occasions when the merge conflicts were so bad that I had to drop a whole tree, but they were fixed up the next day. Linux-next has only one downstream - Andrew's mm tree and he bases on a particular day's linux-next tree each time he rebuilds mm. Testers just need to take the complete tree (which isn't too bad if you are using git since all the linux-next trees share a lot of objects). Does that answer your question? -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Attachment:
pgprKW74xdlyM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
