Re: nicer frontend to get rebased tree?

[Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > 
> > A lot of the trees don't rebase. The rest of the trees may not realize 
> 
> That's not my experience, sorry (even on other other trees than linux-next,
> linux-next was just an example).  e.g. the original ACPI tree did it,
> the x86 tree jungle does it, most of the other architecture trees do it,
> the networking tree does it. etc.etc.

So _complain_ to those people. Tell them that they are making your life 
harder. Let them know.

I sure as hell let people know when they are making _my_ life harder. It 
has helped. The networking tree stopped rebasing, and the x86 tree doesn't 
do it for the topic branches (although I think it re-creates the "common" 
branches all the time, kind of like linux-next).

That said, why the hell do you even care? You shouldn't base your work on 
other trees anyway. You should base your work on something as stable as 
possible. IOW, not necessariyl even my "tree-of-the-day", but actually try 
to do as much development based on real releases as possible.

Yeah, sometimes you need to synchronize with other people, but that really 
should be avoided. Not because git doesn't do it well, but because any 
time you have multiple people working in the same area, there is something 
generally WRONG. It's indicative that there is a lack of modularity when 
people step on each others toes too much.

> Then for linux-next it's reasonable to say that one shouldn't 
> do development on top of it, but still if there is supposed
> to be a tester base for it it requires at least reasonable
> support in git for regular read-only download and right now that
> support is at best obscure and unobvious (to avoid stronger words)

Umm. How obscure was it really to do

	git fetch
	git checkout

Hmm?

		Linus