Re: kvm repository unification

Anthony Liguori
2007-03-20T14:10:51Z

Avi Kivity wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday 20 March 2007, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Managing userspace in subversion and the kernel in git is proving to be
>>> quite a pain. Branches have to be maintained in parallel, tagging is
>>> awkward, and bisection is fairly impossible.
>>>
>>> What do people think about putting libkvm and qemu into the usr
>>> directory of the kernel repo? It's slightly wierd but will make life
>>> generally easier.
>>>
>>>
>> In my projects, I tend to never have a complete kernel tree under
>> revision control, only patches in a form suitable for 'quilt mail'.
>> This makes it a lot easier to see how the patches will look when they
>> get merged upstream.
>>
>>
>>
>
> How does that work with multiple developers?
>
> I find that git's cherry-pick and history editing features to be almost
> as easy to use as quilt when it comes to managing patches; added to the
> ease of distributed development I think it has a clear edge over quilt.
>
> [I used to use quilt to cherry pick out of the subversion tree.
> Nowadays I just cherry pick what I want to send upstream and put it on a
> branch]
>

I think a single repository with libkvm and a QEMU and kernel patch
queue (quilt or mq, it doesn't matter to me) would be best.

Patches in the main queue would get folded upstream quickly
(hopefully). Devs would submit new patches that you may choose to
either add to the queue or fold an existing patch.

I actually find that it's easier to do merging with a patch queue than
by directly committing.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori