From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756708Ab0BOX50 (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Feb 2010 18:57:26 -0500 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:59978 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756158Ab0BOX5Y (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Feb 2010 18:57:24 -0500 Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 23:57:16 +0000 From: Al Viro To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: David Chinner , xfs-masters@oss.sgi.com, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: Rebase v. merge (Was: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the xfs tree with the vfs tree) Message-ID: <20100215235716.GY30031@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20100215122740.87c6cb5f.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20100215034417.GV30031@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20100216101626.0549dee8.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100216101626.0549dee8.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 10:16:26AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Al, > > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 03:44:17 +0000 Al Viro wrote: > > > > Actually, I'd cheerfully rebased that sucker (to e.g. write_inode2); it has > > grown a trivial conflict with mainline after one of gfs2 merges and it's > > annoying to fix it up after each for-next rebase. > > > > So I'd rather put a rebased variant and switched the for-next to using that, > > if people who'd pulled it already are OK with that. > > Just out of interest, is there some reason you didn't just merge Linus' > tree (or the subset that caused the conflict) into the write-inode > branch. That would have meant that you still had a nonrebasing branch > that others could use. Now anyone who has merged your write_inode branch > needs to rebuild their trees using you new write-rebase2 branch or risk > causing conflicts in linux-next or Linus' tree when their tree's are > merged. Branch in question still doesn't exist; that was a question, not a description of what I've already done. I guess I can do what you describe, but... Yuck. Multiple merges from mainline can create one hell of a mess down the road. I had to deal with results of exactly that when dwmw2 had dumped the audit tree into my lap and it had been a huge mess that took quite a while to untangle ;-/ The same goes for modifications hidden in merge commit, BTW. I know that Linus seems to be OK with that kind of thing, but... every time I run into that is when some change is not to be found in git log -p ;-/ Oh, well... I'll probably do that merge of mainline back into write_inode and try hard to avoid anything similar in the next cycles.