From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755289Ab2DWLL5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Apr 2012 07:11:57 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.186]:56133 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754645Ab2DWLL4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Apr 2012 07:11:56 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Olof Johansson Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] at91: fist cleanup branch for 3.5 Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 11:11:47 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/3.3.0-rc1; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Nicolas Ferre , "linux-arm-kernel" , Linux Kernel list , "Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD" References: <4F8D9037.9010401@atmel.com> <201204222032.48694.arnd@arndb.de> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201204231111.47448.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:YW/iwF40uKdnv09iKKGXK+wSJfm4Ct23KJIhhglZ3jx dn/LA+eFUnQ7fCC/hn/7morKyHtV4C+tvT9zew3zB6yc1dj55/ EaV1OLmj2DZr/X5SbxCqM26twBweMeNuRWBwuwAddMqg2Lk3V/ 3RT0QpfB1CIejk0Ds/ANVTdXLEW/iGHISvQU9AsiFCeUJR3wzo XEJ7zhMkTSMvIN74ZJzVjrkW4qQDVAXJ4Gse12nDtaU/9pGcNF ovWRiEt2OFpv3tDWNf0t15djpukySJL9ecrVrfX+hCh8EdM4ir bPr0/ET5xU5ab+dKSgwidj6Q496z+hdsl8EwuK9AxSWViVY08T uq9q7NCA8KOwi5q7TgYI= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sunday 22 April 2012, Olof Johansson wrote: > There, I had this workflow: > > * git fetch > * 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 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