From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from ra.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.52]:3656 "EHLO ra.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753270AbXLDPW2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Dec 2007 10:22:28 -0500 Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 10:21:22 -0500 From: "John W. Linville" To: David Woodhouse Cc: Dan Williams , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Holger Schurig , libertas-dev@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] less eventcause shifts Message-ID: <20071204152122.GE19911@tuxdriver.com> (sfid-20071204_152231_199616_07AACB0C) References: <200711280915.11300.hs4233@mail.mn-solutions.de> <1196704681.21151.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1196714939.13978.171.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <20071204145437.GC19911@tuxdriver.com> <1196780866.13978.275.camel@pmac.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1196780866.13978.275.camel@pmac.infradead.org> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 03:07:46PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 09:54 -0500, John W. Linville wrote: > > The result is a nice, rebased set of patches on top of the current > > upstream work. If you simply did a "commit, pull, commit, pull, > > etc" cycle then you would end-up with a set of patches that might > > no longer apply on top of a clean upstream branch -- been there, > > wireless-dev RIP. > > Ah, I understand your confusion. It reflects akpm's confusion when he > first started trying to use git-bisect. > > This thing is, there is no actual need for a 'set of patches'. Git isn't > about patches. It's about commits and pulls. It doesn't _matter_ if you > had to fix up something when you merged from Linus, because when Linus > pulls from your tree, he pulls your manual merge effort too. Well I'm a bit hemmed-in -- Linus pull's from Dave and Jeff, they pull from me. Both of them are a bit prone to rebasing as well. Even if I just "let it ride" (i.e. didn't rebase), I would still be prone to some of the merge difficulties I described when I pulled duplicate patches back in from Linus later. FWIW, I've seen Linus complain about dirty git history on several occassions. So even if he were pulling directly from me I imagine that there would still be a need for some of this quilt-like use of git to clean-up things from time to time. Still, it is true that I might be able to maintain a more consistent 'everything' branch if I weren't "serving two masters"...alas. > > [1] If your work does _not_ rely on patches already merged in my tree > > then by all means just use Linus' tree. > > That was my intention, right up to the point at which a bunch of > libertas patches appeared in your tree :) It was my understanding that you were working on top of these patches anyway (i.e. not rewriting or replacing them). Anyway they are all destined for 2.6.25 so your "Linus + libertas patches" just still be just as valid...? John -- John W. Linville linville@tuxdriver.com