Hi Linus,
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> A cherry-pick really is nothing but "apply the same patch as a
> different commit".
>
> So there is no way to say "this is already there" - because it really
> isn't. It's a totally different thing. In fact, it would be very wrong
> to filter them out, both from a fundamental design standpoint, but
> also from a usability/reliability standpoint: cherry-picks are by no
> means guaranteed to be identical to the source - like any "re-apply
> the patch in another place" model, the end result is not at all
> guaranteed to be semantically identical simply due to different bases:
> the patches may not even be identical, and even if they are, the
> results of the code may depend on what else is going on.
>
> So don't think of cherry-picks as "the same commit". It's not, and it
> never will be. It's a totally separate commit, they just share some
> superficial commonalities.
OK, I did not know that. Thanks for the explanation!
Is cherry pick still sane from maintainer workflow point of view? I
used to do it the other way - merge bug fixes to an "urgent branch"
and then merge that to the "next branch". I changed my workflow to
apply the patches always to the "next branch" first and only cherry
pick to the "urgent branch" if necessary.
Am I doing it wrong?
Pekka
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>