Re: HG -> GIT migration

[Rene Herman <rene.herman@keyaccess.nl>]

On 21-05-08 15:48, Jaroslav Kysela wrote:

> On Wed, 21 May 2008, Rene Herman wrote:

>> It's "worse" than that; rebasing is designed for a _private_ development 
>> model. git-rebase is a very handy tool for people like myself (people 
>> without a downstream that is) and it basically enables the quilt model 
>> of a stack of patches on top of git but public trees that have people 
>> pulling from them should generally not rebase or everyone who _is_ 
>> pulling finds a different tree each time.
> 
> I don't see big obstacles with this model. You can do changes in your 
> local tree and when 'git pull' fails from the subsystem tree, pull new 
> subsystem tree to a new branch and do rebasing in your local tree, too.
> 
> Rebasing can keep the subsystem tree more clean I think. It's only 
> about to settle an appropriate workflow.

I'm also still frequently trying to figure out an/the efficient way of 
using GIT but it does seem it's not just a matter of "pure downstream" 
(which I do believe ALSA has few enough of to not make this be a huge 
problem). For example linux-next is also going to want to pull in ALSA 
and say it does, finds a trivial conflict with the trivial tree that it 
also pulls in and fixes things up. If you rebase that which linux-next 
pulls from I believe it will have to redo the fix next time it pulls 
from you since it's getting all those new changesets.

I guess this can be avoided by just not rebasing that which linux-next 
is pulling... and I in fact don't even know if linux-next does any 
conflict resolution itself, trivial or otherwise.

<shrug>

I'll see how things work out.

Rene.