Re: trouble using a local kernel repo

[Hollis Blanchard <hollis_blanchard@mentor.com>]

On 02/16/2012 03:02 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> That's the problem. I have a patch that detects this and abort is a non
> bare upstream is used. I just need to send them .. which I'll do when
> I get back to my desk next week.
>
> There are two reason for this bare clone requirement:
>
>   - technical: this scales to several hundred branches. cloning, and 
> iterating
>     remote branches to create local tracking branches is noisy and
>     time consuming. So there's a trick that has been in use for years
>     that you can clone a bare upstream, and mass convert the branches
>     to local in a single operation.
>
>   - social: you want to do your development in a different tree from the
>     one that is being cloned and used. That way the tree is clean, and 
> you
>     are building what you expect.

Do I want to do my development in a different tree? Are you sure? ;)

I don't need to scale to hundreds of branches -- I just have one small 
patch I wanted to test. I already have it in a "clean" tree -- it's a 
committed changeset, with a commit message and everything, even though I 
haven't even been able to *test* it yet!

I'm just trying to test a small kernel/meta patch, and the poorly 
documented list of setup requirements is growing longer and longer. All 
this stuff may be good practice for a more complicated scenario, but so 
far it seems like enormous overkill for my use case...

Hollis Blanchard
Mentor Graphics, Embedded Systems Division