From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rene Herman Subject: Re: HG vs GIT Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:14:57 +0100 Message-ID: <47AB74D1.1070700@keyaccess.nl> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtpq1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl (smtpq1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl [213.51.146.200]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B1CE2464A for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 22:13:40 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: Takashi Iwai Cc: ALSA development List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On 07-02-08 12:27, Takashi Iwai wrote: > BTW, one big annoying thing is that developers have no complete kernel > tree to access, and thus the patches that touch outside the ALSA > subdirectory cannot be merged easily. People often send patches > fixing together with OSS, etc, and I had to skip them. So, frankly, > I'd love to have an access to the whole kernel tree. But, OTOH, this > would make harder for other naive guys to give it a try because they > need to download the big linux kernel tree git. > > Maybe we can think reversely. Keep the kernel git tree as the primary > development tree and generate the subset as the alsa-kernel package > from the kernel tree automatically. In this way, you can avoid also > sign-off messes, too. This sounds good... > In this scheme, you don't have to stick with stgit. The normal git > can handle patches well enough (via occasional rebase), and it's much > much faster than stgit. Of course, stgit is still good for small > number of patches, but it's not true for shared devel trees. Rene.