All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	KVM list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@au1.ibm.com>,
	Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] KVM updates for the 3.4 merge window
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:51:24 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1332708684.2882.24.camel@pasglop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F6EEEC1.4030608@redhat.com>

On Sun, 2012-03-25 at 12:09 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:

> Well I've been doing this ever since I moved to git.  The motivation was
> actually to make things easier for patch authors by allowing them to
> work against a tree of all applied patches, while the update for the
> next merge window is just a subset, with more fixes going into the merge
> window even late in the cycle, and features being deferred to the next
> one.  I also fold fixes or reverts into their parent patches to improve
> bisectability.
> 
> I can switch to fast-forward-only in the future, but I'm afraid that
> this particular tree is broken for good.  The un-rebased
> fast-forward-only source for this is kvm.git master, which I don't think
> you want to pull.  It will cause every kvm commit to appear twice and
> confuse everyone. 

The problem is that it makes it very hard if not impossible to work
with a combination of your tree & other trees (for example at some point
I had to work on a merge of alex'tree, powerpc-next and pci-next).

I don't see the problem with using the standard way and having
sub-maintainers/developers.... Most of my sub-maintainers work on top of
some upstream or they branch off my -next branch (which is known to
never be rebased, so it's resync'ed as soon as Linux pulls it). Dealing
with branches & merges in git is trivial and easier than dealing with
the clashes caused by the rebases :-)

One thing I do, is to also sometimes put out a powerpc-test branch that
people know can and will be rebased, it's purely there if I want some
folks to test a bunch of stuff but without basing their own work on top
of it.

And yes, there's a drawback vs. bisectability. You can still fold-in if
you pickup patches from the list (vs pulling from sub-maintainers) as
long as you haven't committed them to a "non-rebase" branch (ie, you can
let things stage in a test branch for example for a couple of weeks to
flush out those issues).

Cheers,
Ben.

  reply	other threads:[~2012-03-25 20:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-03-20 14:08 [GIT PULL] KVM updates for the 3.4 merge window Avi Kivity
2012-03-23  0:10 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2012-03-23  3:15   ` Linus Torvalds
2012-03-25 10:09     ` Avi Kivity
2012-03-25 20:51       ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt [this message]
2012-03-26 10:05         ` Avi Kivity
2012-03-26 16:21           ` Ingo Molnar
2012-03-27  7:31             ` Avi Kivity
2012-03-26 21:05           ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2012-03-26 21:38       ` Paul Mackerras
2012-03-27 10:09         ` Avi Kivity
2012-03-28  4:02           ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2012-03-28 19:41             ` Linus Torvalds
2012-03-30 12:01           ` Paul Mackerras
2012-04-01 12:38             ` Avi Kivity
2012-04-01 21:02               ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2012-04-02  9:06                 ` Avi Kivity
2012-04-02  9:46                   ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2012-04-16 12:47                     ` Alexander Graf
2012-04-16 12:53                       ` Avi Kivity
2012-04-16 13:05                         ` Alexander Graf
2012-04-16 23:05                         ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2012-04-17  7:20                           ` Avi Kivity
2012-04-17  9:34                             ` Alexander Graf
2012-04-17 10:25                               ` Avi Kivity
2012-04-01 22:45               ` Paul Mackerras
2012-04-02  9:07                 ` Avi Kivity

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1332708684.2882.24.camel@pasglop \
    --to=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=agraf@suse.de \
    --cc=avi@redhat.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
    --cc=paulus@au1.ibm.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.