Re: kvm repository unification

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

Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 March 2007, Avi Kivity 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.
>>     
>
> Just a few random thoughts on this:
>
> - if you have multiple changesets in svn that you want to submit as
> a single patch, it's useful to only have to do the folding once.
>   

Well, one can do that with git too (on a separate branch).

> - Having the changeset as a patch means that multiple developers
> can add their Acked-by: and Signed-off-by: by editing the description
> in the patch file, while you can't easily change an existing changeset
> comment. E.g. I require everyone with write access to add their own
> Signed-off-by:, while I add mine when I look at the patches I want
> to send out.
>   

Again, you can with git.

> - When a developer checks in a new changeset, I found that often there
> are formal problems in it, e.g. the comment doesn't follow the rules
> for kernel commits, or there is some coding style problem. In a
> patch file, you can trivially fix that.
>   

Unfortunately that happens a lot here, and it's definitely easier with 
quilt.

I'll hold off the decision and think about it some more.  Maybe the 
problem will go away, as Anthony suggests.


-- 
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