On Mon, 13 Mar 2017, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Our cherry-pick sha1 work exactly like yours: They don't make sense > when you only look at the tree a patch has been cherry-picked _to_, > since they're the sha1 from the tree they've been cherry-picked > _from_. When you clone a fresh copy of your stable tree then the > cherry-pick numbers also point nowhere. Only once you've pulled the > future tree they're from (Linus' git in your case) do they make sense. > > Same for our cherry-picks, except the future tree isn't Linus' git > (we'd have managed to make sha1 collisions cheaply otherwise ...) but > the future Linus' git tree. Which is maintained by Stephen Rothwell in > linux-next. As soon as you make sure you have the latest > linux-next.git they will all resolve to something meaningful. Indeed, if there's a cherry-pick reference to a commit that's *not* in linux-next, we deserve to be yelled at. The branches that feed to linux-next that we cherry-pick from are non-rebasing, so the commit ids should not change when they eventually hit Linus' tree. >> So if a commit says "cherry-pick", I guess I can always assume it's safe >> to add, right? If not, _then_ I have to run the "search backwards" >> logic, right? >> >> Ok, let me think about this a bit to see if that's possible to script... Most of our cherry-picking is scripted, so if there's further annotation that you'd like, just let us know. (Too bad it's virtually impossible to modify the commit being cherry-picked. Unless someone(tm) comes up with a way to share git-notes in a sensible, distributed way.) BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
