[GIT PULL 5/5] ARM: mvebu: changes for v3.8

[arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)]

On Monday 26 November 2012, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Arnd,
> 
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:28:26 +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Monday 26 November 2012, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> > > Right. The problem is that some of the last developments had many
> > > dependencies against the previous developments, from various branches.
> > > So I wasn't sure how to do this last developments, and I did merge the
> > > branches containing the previous developments that I needed.
> > > 
> > > I am really open to suggestions on how to improve my Git workflow to
> > > handle this better. It certainly wasn't my intention to have this
> > > "test-the-merge" thing appear publicly.
> > 
> > One thing that Sascha Hauer first introduced was an extra branch that
> > has everything merged together to show how you want to handle
> > the conflicts. We'll then merge the individual branches and in the
> > end can check if there is any difference to what you had.
> 
> Maybe I don't understand correctly, but the problem that I had is not a
> problem of conflicts, but rather the need to do development *on top* of
> branches for which pull requests had already been sent.

Ok, sorry for the confusion on my part.

> For example, the clk support in the network driver depended on:
>  * The branch containing the new network driver to be there
>  * The branch containing the mvebu clk infrastructure to be there
> 
> What should I have done to do this clk support in the network driver,
> if not a merge of the network driver branch + the mvebu clk
> infrastructure branch?

No, this all sounds good, there is not easier way really. Sometimes
you can do the branches in a way that each branch works by itself
but you don't have to do a third branch to combine the features.

In other cases, where you have multiple branches that all get
merged through arm-soc (or another tree that uses branches like
this), you can try to get everyone to agree on an order in advance,
and then you just mandate that one branch has another one as
a prerequisite.

Yet another option is to have a few patches that serve as a
common base for multiple branches: E.g. have one patch introduce
a new interface as a stub and base two branches on top of the
same commit, one that uses the interface and another one that
implements it. Again, this is not always possible.

If you do a lot of reworks at the same time, this always gets
very hard.

	Arnd