From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kmemcheck tree Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:58:00 +0200 Message-ID: <20080813085800.GF23417@elte.hu> References: <20080813152907.b76a06e3.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20080813073205.GA398@elte.hu> <48A28DD9.7010108@cs.helsinki.fi> <20080813075808.GA11645@elte.hu> <1218615288.7813.310.camel@penberg-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:47387 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752512AbYHMI6X (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Aug 2008 04:58:23 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1218615288.7813.310.camel@penberg-laptop> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Pekka Enberg Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Vegard Nossum , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu , Christoph Lameter * Pekka Enberg wrote: > Hi Ingo, > > On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 09:58 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > (This would be doable and pretty painless as long as slab.git is > > purely append-only and not rebased.) > > Heh, it's not, as I never quite understood the workflow for that. But > that's another discussion, I suppose. what's your current workflow, what causes the sha1's for commits to change frequently? Do you work with patches (i.e. it's not really a Git workflow at all and you regenerate the git tree all the time you export it from your patch queue), or do you perhaps git-rebase often to clean up patches? Ingo