From: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 21:57:37 -0700 > This is a(nother) case where a toolchain/process problem is forcing us > to do something which we don't want to do. In an ideal world we should > tell the git developers "we want x, please" and hopefully they can give > it to us. Because right now, we're having to work around shortcomings > in git and we are producing a lesser product as a result of this. A tool > should follow the way in which humans want to work, not vice versa. This has beaten like a dead horse a thousand times. Bringing it up again isn't likely to cause further progress. :) > Short-term... dunno. Perhaps you could have a two-weekly > broadly-announced rebase in which you integrate all these dribs and > drags back into their proper place? Commit them with some well-known > identifier in the title so that they can all be located when that time > comes? > > If you announce such a rebase a day or so beforehand then all the guys > who feed into you could get their stuff merged up into your tree to > minimise their pain when the rebase happens, perhaps. This, along with the idea of taking care of all of the "dribs" right before the real merge, is error prone. It means I have to play with large collections of patches all at one time. The reason I use GIT is because I'm stupid and make mistakes, therefore I don't like playing with patches. I used to play this game, it's a lot of work and it sucks. One "drib" can require fixing up 200 patches down the chain. And I've had this happen to me all the time in the past when I was rebasing all the time. Not this specific case, mind you, but it is a real concern in general. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
