public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	KVM list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@au1.ibm.com>,
	Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] KVM updates for the 3.4 merge window
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:51:24 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1332708684.2882.24.camel@pasglop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F6EEEC1.4030608@redhat.com>

On Sun, 2012-03-25 at 12:09 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:

> Well I've been doing this ever since I moved to git.  The motivation was
> actually to make things easier for patch authors by allowing them to
> work against a tree of all applied patches, while the update for the
> next merge window is just a subset, with more fixes going into the merge
> window even late in the cycle, and features being deferred to the next
> one.  I also fold fixes or reverts into their parent patches to improve
> bisectability.
> 
> I can switch to fast-forward-only in the future, but I'm afraid that
> this particular tree is broken for good.  The un-rebased
> fast-forward-only source for this is kvm.git master, which I don't think
> you want to pull.  It will cause every kvm commit to appear twice and
> confuse everyone. 

The problem is that it makes it very hard if not impossible to work
with a combination of your tree & other trees (for example at some point
I had to work on a merge of alex'tree, powerpc-next and pci-next).

I don't see the problem with using the standard way and having
sub-maintainers/developers.... Most of my sub-maintainers work on top of
some upstream or they branch off my -next branch (which is known to
never be rebased, so it's resync'ed as soon as Linux pulls it). Dealing
with branches & merges in git is trivial and easier than dealing with
the clashes caused by the rebases :-)

One thing I do, is to also sometimes put out a powerpc-test branch that
people know can and will be rebased, it's purely there if I want some
folks to test a bunch of stuff but without basing their own work on top
of it.

And yes, there's a drawback vs. bisectability. You can still fold-in if
you pickup patches from the list (vs pulling from sub-maintainers) as
long as you haven't committed them to a "non-rebase" branch (ie, you can
let things stage in a test branch for example for a couple of weeks to
flush out those issues).

Cheers,
Ben.



  reply	other threads:[~2012-03-25 20:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-03-20 14:08 [GIT PULL] KVM updates for the 3.4 merge window Avi Kivity
2012-03-23  0:10 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2012-03-23  3:15   ` Linus Torvalds
2012-03-25 10:09     ` Avi Kivity
2012-03-25 20:51       ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt [this message]
2012-03-26 10:05         ` Avi Kivity
2012-03-26 16:21           ` Ingo Molnar
2012-03-27  7:31             ` Avi Kivity
2012-03-26 21:05           ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2012-03-26 21:38       ` Paul Mackerras
2012-03-27 10:09         ` Avi Kivity
2012-03-28  4:02           ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2012-03-28 19:41             ` Linus Torvalds
2012-03-30 12:01           ` Paul Mackerras
2012-04-01 12:38             ` Avi Kivity
2012-04-01 21:02               ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2012-04-02  9:06                 ` Avi Kivity
2012-04-02  9:46                   ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2012-04-16 12:47                     ` Alexander Graf
2012-04-16 12:53                       ` Avi Kivity
2012-04-16 13:05                         ` Alexander Graf
2012-04-16 23:05                         ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2012-04-17  7:20                           ` Avi Kivity
2012-04-17  9:34                             ` Alexander Graf
2012-04-17 10:25                               ` Avi Kivity
2012-04-01 22:45               ` Paul Mackerras
2012-04-02  9:07                 ` Avi Kivity

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=1332708684.2882.24.camel@pasglop \
    --to=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=agraf@suse.de \
    --cc=avi@redhat.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
    --cc=paulus@au1.ibm.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /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