From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christopher Li Subject: Re: [PATCH] write-tree performance problems Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 17:52:48 -0400 Message-ID: <20050419215248.GA6932@64m.dyndns.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Lang , Chris Mason , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Apr 20 03:00:09 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DO3ZA-0003uR-D7 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 02:59:44 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261202AbVDTBDz (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:03:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261207AbVDTBDz (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:03:55 -0400 Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]:20145 "EHLO rwcrmhc12.comcast.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261202AbVDTBDx (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:03:53 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (c-24-6-236-77.hsd1.ca.comcast.net[24.6.236.77]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with ESMTP id <2005042001035101400njemqe>; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 01:03:53 +0000 Received: by localhost.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1027) id E52173F1EF; Tue, 19 Apr 2005 17:52:48 -0400 (EDT) To: Linus Torvalds Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 04:59:18PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > However, it definitely wouldn't be useful for _me_. The whole thing that > I'm after is to allow painless merging of distributed work. If I have to > merge one patch at a time, I'd much rather see people send me patches > directly - that's much simpler than having a whole new GIT repository. > > So at least to me, a git repository only makes sense when it is a > collection of patches. Same here, I have been toying the idea to using git as quilt back end then I can get rid of the .pc/ directory in quilt. But think about it more, I don't get a good reason to do it. quilt as it is, works great with git or other SCM. Using git to store the quilt patches will require merge more often, instead of just applying patches. Introduce more steps and more objects to clean up later on. It seems that every thing I have been using quilt for, it is easier just deal with the series patches. Chris