From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>
Cc: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD" <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] at91: fist cleanup branch for 3.5
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 11:11:47 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201204231111.47448.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOesGMg4fJD9ojem_Z2ZZTswK10TwNMtBMncPYhQS9ozmPfqbg@mail.gmail.com>
On Sunday 22 April 2012, Olof Johansson wrote:
> There, I had this workflow:
>
> * git fetch <url+branch from pull request>
> * tig FETCH_HEAD (look at contents, sanity check, etc: If something
> looks wrong there's no merge to undo)
> * git checkout -b subarch/topic FETCH_HEAD to create the pulled-in
> topic branch
> * git checkout next/topic
> * git pull --log <url+branch from pull request> to get the original
> URL in the merge commit
>
> Then the usual steps to get it into for-next and added to the contents file.
Ok. I've now started skipping the 'checkout -b' step and just doing
a 'git branch subarch/topic FETCH_HEAD', but the result is the same.
> That way we do get the --log in the next/ branch as well as the tag
> message, but only one merge changeset. It also has the benefit of
> making it trivial to see when things have been merged with mainline
> which branches can be pruned and not.
>
> The only thing missing from that workflow is the authenticity of the
> subarch/topic branch once it's done, in case there is tinkering with
> the arm-soc repo by some third party. I don't think that's a big risk
> since we tend to diff the for-next contents before and after a
> rebuild, so any delta in file contents will be caught. Since each
> branch is documented in arm-soc-for-next-contents, we should have all
> bases covered there.
I also catch changes to the branches when I update my tree.
> I guess we could tag every subarch/topic tip as well, but it'll get
> pretty noisy with all them in the main repo. We have the option of
> pushing those to a separate repo instead of the main arm-soc.git if we
> wanted though.
The idea I've had before is to just keep tags for each subarch/topic
instead of branches, which would seperate them from one another, and
we could leave the message in the tag without it cluttering the history.
The main disadvantage I see in that is that I don't have a good workflow
for maintaining remote tags yet.
Arnd
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-23 11:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-04-17 15:45 [GIT PULL] at91: fist cleanup branch for 3.5 Nicolas Ferre
2012-04-17 16:02 ` Nicolas Ferre
2012-04-22 20:32 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-04-22 22:03 ` Olof Johansson
2012-04-23 11:11 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
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=201204231111.47448.arnd@arndb.de \
--to=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nicolas.ferre@atmel.com \
--cc=olof@lixom.net \
--cc=plagnioj@jcrosoft.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