On Fr, 2008-05-02 at 07:50 +0800, Peter Teoh wrote: > I had problem syncing with sched.devel tree (conflict merge), but > Peter Zijstra mentioned that it is being rebased all the time, so no > git pull. So if no git pull, I don't understand how the others can > download it for testing. > > Basically, what are the difference between the two git tree? > Hi Linus just explained how to test a constantly rebased tree on lkml. This is for linux-next but can be equally applied for other trees: On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 15:19 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > For busy (or lazy) people like myself, the big problem with > linux-next are > > > the frequent merge breakages, when pulling the tree stops with > "you are in > > > the middle of a merge conflict". > > > > Really? Doesn't Stephen handle all those problems? It should be a > clean > > fetch each time? > > It should indeed be a clean fetch, but I wonder if Dmitri perhaps does > a > "git pull" - which will do the fetch, but then try to _merge_ that > fetched > state into whatever the last base Dmitri happened to have. > > Dmitry: you cannot just "git pull" on linux-next, because each version > of > linux-next is independent of the next one. What you should do is > basically > > # Set this up just once.. > git remote add linux-next > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sfr/linux-next.git > > and then after that, you keep on just doing > > git fetch linux-next > git checkout linux-next/master > > which will get you the actual objects and check out the state of that > remote (and then you'll normally never be on a local branch on that > tree, > git will end up using a so-called "detached head" for this). > > IOW, you should never need to do any merges, because Stephen did all > those > in linux-next already. > > Linus
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
