From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: nicer frontend to get rebased tree? Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:58:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <20080822174655.GP23334@one.firstfloor.org> <20080822182718.GQ23334@one.firstfloor.org> <20080823071014.GT23334@one.firstfloor.org> <20080823164546.GX23334@one.firstfloor.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Andi Kleen X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Aug 23 20:00:20 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KWxPO-0007XJ-Cg for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 20:00:18 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752998AbYHWR7F (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:59:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753004AbYHWR7E (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:59:04 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:42845 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752977AbYHWR7D (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:59:03 -0400 Received: from imap1.linux-foundation.org (imap1.linux-foundation.org [140.211.169.55]) by smtp1.linux-foundation.org (8.14.2/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id m7NHwujR010698 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:58:57 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by imap1.linux-foundation.org (8.13.5.20060308/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id m7NHwtRB026691; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:58:56 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20080823164546.GX23334@one.firstfloor.org> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (LFD 962 2008-03-14) X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.429 required=5 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.4-osdl_revision__1.47__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: lf$Revision: 1.188 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.63 on 140.211.169.13 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: 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