Re: linux-next: Tree for June 5

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 18:22:06 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
> 
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 01:01:49 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > Well yes - I just bodged it by hand then unbodged it later.  But we
> > have a bisection break there.  Admittedly a minor one, unless the bug
> > you're bisecting for requires that kprobes be configured.  But it would
> > be nice to squish it.
> > 
> > I hope Ingo isn't following this
> > once-you've-checked-it-in-you-can't-fix-it stupidity :(
> 
> Its a break caused by the merge of the ftrace tree into the linux-next
> tree (because at the point I merge the ftrace tree, linux-next contains
> the rcu tree which has moves stuff into rculist.h), so logically that
> patch should become part of the merge commit.  If it was part of the
> merge, you could never bisect to a point where you got this build
> breakage.
> 
> Each tree is fine on its own if you go one step back from the merge.

Well OK.  But patches in fact _do_ go into Linux as a single linear
stream of commits.  But the whole git model ignores that reality and
here we see the result.

And saying "git doesn't work like that - you don't understand" just
doesn't cut it.  It is a tool's job to permit humans to implement the
workflow which they wish to follow.  Not to go and force them into
doing something inferior.

Sigh.

/usualrant