From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: [git patches] 2.6.x libata updates Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 21:09:24 +0100 Message-ID: <20051029200924.GM7992@ftp.linux.org.uk> References: <20051029182228.GA14495@havoc.gtf.org> <20051029121454.5d27aecb.akpm@osdl.org> <4363CB60.2000201@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Jeff Garzik , Andrew Morton , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 12:37:58PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Now, I've gotten several positive comments on how easy "git bisect" is to > use, and I've used it myself, but this is the first time that patch users > _really_ become very much second-class citizens, and you can't necessarily > always do useful things with just the tar-trees and patches. That's sad, > and possibly a really big downside. > > Don't get me wrong - I personally think that the new merge policy is a > clear improvement, but it does have this downside. Well... All it takes is extra patches when incremental gets too large; e.g. have a script pick idle interval close to splitting the thing in half until parts get less than . The question is, how much extra load would that create? Another problem is that a lot of intermediates will not build, but that is just as true for -git snapshots ;-/