From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:46056 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753712Ab0ASMg3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jan 2010 07:36:29 -0500 Message-ID: <4B55A749.9040407@infradead.org> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:36:25 -0200 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Laurent Pinchart CC: Linux Media Mailing List , Douglas Landgraf Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git tree repositories References: <4B55445A.10300@infradead.org> <201001190904.29159.laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> <4B5593BA.9080008@infradead.org> <201001191250.51324.laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> In-Reply-To: <201001191250.51324.laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > So am I. I hope the future will prove us right :-) :) > How do your new git scripts process commits ? In particular, does the > "Priority:" line still applies ? For patches imported from -hg, the script will handle Priority. For patches generated against -git, maybe the better is to have separate branches or trees: one for fixes and another for new stuff, and an indication, at the pull request, to what tree the patch will be applied. We still need some discussions about the process. One of the issues is how do we'll handle SOB's. My SOB should be added on all patches. Also, sometimes, patches may need to receive other SOB-like tags, like acked-by. I'm not sure yet how should we handle it, since a change at the patch description will change the hash code. -git merge is generally smart enough to not generate a conflict between two patches with identical diffs, but we need to do some tests in order to check what would be the better procedure. Cheers, Mauro.