On Wed, 3 Aug 2016, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > This is a part we keep discussing from time to time, and I still don't > > understand why it bothers you so much. The only reason is to keep the > > branch non-rebasing, because it has downstreams. Code-wise, it's > > always equivalent to what end up being merged, but without the actual > > superfluous merge commits. > > The problem from my point of view is that git seems to take more time > to merge the tree into linux-next (I know this isn't much for just one > tree, but I currently have over 200 trees to merge each day). Because of merge commits the number of which is below 100? That's an interesting observation and quite unexpected bottleneck in git. > Also, having all those extra merges complicates the structure of my tree > and presumably makes it harder for git to merge other trees. Its also > possible (I have seen this in other trees) for the merge commits > themselves to generate conflicts with (merge) commits in Linus' and > other trees. > > Also, I am not sure why you have a branch that ask Linus to merge > separate from the branch you have me merge? Exactly to avoid Linus' tree being polluted by the extra merge commits. My workflow is really simple -- development happens in (a lot of) topic branches, and each and every time any of the topic branches is updated by a new commit, that topic branch gets merged into for-next. Once code should go to Linus, the branches are merged at once into 'for-linus' brach, and it's guaranteed to be code-wise the same as what was gradually appearing in for-next. What other workflow do you suggest for maintainers like me, who are using a lot of topic branches? If this is so bothering for you, I'd just start instructing for-next downstreams to stop using that branch so that it could be easily rebased. Thanks, -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
