From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rob Landley Subject: Re: [git patches] 2.6.x libata updates Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 17:31:46 -0600 Message-ID: <200510301731.47825.rob@landley.net> References: <20051029182228.GA14495@havoc.gtf.org> <200510300644.20225.rob@landley.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from dsl092-053-140.phl1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.53.140]:65213 "EHLO grelber.thyrsus.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932406AbVJ3XcB (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Oct 2005 18:32:01 -0500 In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Jeff Garzik , Andrew Morton , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sunday 30 October 2005 16:36, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Is this a viable option? > > No. > > There is no "ordering" in a distributed environment. We have things > happening in parallel, adn you can't really linearize the patches. > > The closest you can get is "git bisect", which does the right thing. > > Linus I know there isn't an absolute or stable ordering, but can't a temporary ordering be exported? I was under the impression that the bk->cvs gateway squashed changes into a sort of order, way back when. Admittedly this order wasn't stable, and new changes perturbed the whole list. But just for debugging purposes with a "patch vs last -rc"? Rob