From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95EBB7F52 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 18:00:21 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 867B78F8064 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 16:00:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.131]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id XO3SHoCaS97jlokZ for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 15:59:54 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 10:59:52 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [RFC] Handling of reviewed patch series Message-ID: <20131213235952.GO31386@dastard> References: <20131213053611.GQ10988@dastard> <20131213185618.GJ1935@sgi.com> <20131213231401.GZ10988@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131213231401.GZ10988@dastard> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Ben Myers Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 10:14:01AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 12:56:18PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 04:36:11PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > like the -next tree, it is a branch that can be rebased without > > > impacting the history of the code in the topic branches because > > > it's just a merge target. > > > > > > What this means is that development can be done against the > > > master branch without fear of conflicting with other changes > > > that are being done. Testing, however, can target the for-next > > > branch, and local integration testing can be done simply by > > > merging a local topic branch into a local for-next branch.... > > > > I'm not too keen on rebasing a published branch, mostly because I > > tend to log test results by commit id. If there is a way to keep > > the initial commit id stable and in the repo so it can be > > referenced later it would be better. e.g. In the [unlikely] > > event that the for-next branch does need to be rebased, tag it > > first. > > Well, I'd be surprised if we have to rebase the for-next branch very > often. If we plan things correctly (e.g. delay disruptive topic > branchs to the next release, and merge them immediately after an > -rc1 update) I think we can effectively avoid rebases. The > difference is that if we ever need to do a rebase, we can. FWIW, I just realised that this isn't a huge problem. Rebasing the for-next branch by remerging topic branches is not going to change the commit IDs of the commits in the topic branches - it only changes the commit ID of the merge commits. Hence if you are tracking commit IDs of the patches rather than the merges, a for-next rebase won't affect your tracking at all. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs