On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 23:37 +0200, Peter Hüwe wrote: > Am Montag 05 Juli 2010 23:11:22 schrieben Sie: > > So if I understand you correctly should finish my patching first on my > > current branch then checkout master and git reset --hard origin and do > > clean up then go on with something else as obviously those patches will > > not be in and the work I have done is now the patch. > > > > And then from now on just make patches on the master and not worry about > > branches since I will keep up to date with the upstream anyway, must > > just make sure I have created my patches before syncing the upstream as > > to not loose the work I have done. > > > That's at least how I handle the linux-next tree for my buildfailure fixes. > I'm not sure if it is the 'correct' way, however it works quite well for me. > > The advantages are that your patch is always up to date with upstream - since > you're usually less than one day behind. > > The drawback is that you lose your changes with each --reset -- however when > you create a patch with git format-patch you have a copy of your changes > always at hand - and you can perhaps reapply them. > > Peter > > Agree, it will work well and yes you have all your patches on hand so can't see any problem with this you can always just re-apply if need be. 'Correct' I guess is what works well for you and I can't see why this approach won't work well, seems pretty logical and is the way I am going to use. Thanks for this info was exactly what I wanted! Joe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
