From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Handling of reviewed patch series
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 22:47:23 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131213114723.GM31386@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131213111959.GF23546@infradead.org>
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 03:19:59AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> I'm a big fan of the for-next vs for-linux split for next release work
> vs bugfixes which we've not applied yet. The whole topic branches
> scheme makes sense for large changes like the crc work, but seems
> utterly confusing if applied to every little change, as now the amount
> of branches you can conflict againt multiplies. I'm defintively in
> favour of a model that has less active branches.
I certainly wouldn't want to create topic branches for every
standalone patch - that doesn't make any sense from a management
overhead point of view. I'd keep a "miscellaneous" topic branch
specifically for aggregating standalone and small fixes, and that
keeps the number of topic branches under control.
The way I see it from a developer POV is that after the topic branch
is created you can check that it matches your local changes, then
just ignore it. You continue to work from the for-next branch (which
now includes your work from the topic branch), or continue to target
the unchanging master branch or the for-next merge target branch,
which would be the same as what you work from now.
In the case that you have work that is dependent on a specific topic
branch, we can add the work to the end of that topic branch rather
than create a new one. Or if you have dependencies across
everything, then you develop against for-next and we simply make
that the last topic branch to be merged into for-next.
i.e. as a developer, you really don't need to care that much about
individual topic branches and how they are managed....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-12-13 11:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-12-13 5:36 [RFC] Handling of reviewed patch series Dave Chinner
2013-12-13 11:19 ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-13 11:47 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2013-12-13 13:42 ` Brian Foster
2013-12-13 22:44 ` Dave Chinner
2013-12-13 18:56 ` Ben Myers
2013-12-13 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2013-12-13 23:59 ` Dave Chinner
2013-12-16 23:39 ` Ben Myers
2013-12-17 3:54 ` Dave Chinner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20131213114723.GM31386@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox