Re: kvm repository unification

[Avi Kivity <avi-atKUWr5tajBWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>]

Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
> I find using a patch queue useful though for submitting things 
> upstream.  A good example is our QEMU changes.  It's a real pain to 
> break apart the SVN history into individual patches.

Why not just extract diffs with 'svn diff'?  That's what I did/do.

>
> I tend to keep the patches in revision control too.
>
> In the paravirt_ops queue, they keep a file that contains the 
> changeset ID of whatever the patches are based off of.  That tends to 
> help with respect to going backwards in history.

Yeah.
 
>
> Mercurial is *much* friendlier than git.  Linus' tree is available via 
> mercurial too.
>
> It should be pretty easy to maintain the KVM changes as a patch queue 
> against Linus' tree.
>
> We could have Makefile magic too to clone a kernel/qemu tree and apply 
> the patch queue that a top level "make" still did the right thing.

Okay.  I'll run it through the guys here and see what they think.


-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV