Re: HG -> GIT migration

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

On 21-05-08 16:52, Takashi Iwai wrote:

> At Wed, 21 May 2008 16:40:37 +0200,
> Rene Herman wrote:

>> 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.
> 
> I thought linux-next does fresh merges at each time, thus it doesn't
> matter whether a subsystem tree is rebased or not...

Let's ask...

Fresh merges at each release boundary certainly but if it drops/remerges 
each subsystem when a bug in its for-next branch is found (a supposedly 
non rare occurence) all the hopefully hundreds or even thousands of 
linux-next pullers/testers would seem to have to deal with all those 
completely new merges everytime as well. I'd hope linux-next during a 
single release would just pull in the one fix (the subsystem's for-linus 
branch can still fold it in).

Rene.