Re: Linux 2.6.11.1

[Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>]

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
>>Yup, BK could definitely handle that...
> 
> 
> However, it's also true that the thing BK is _worst_ at is cherry-picking 
> things, and having a collection of stuff where somebody may end up vetoing 
> one patch and saying "remove that one".

In general, I agree.  Andrew and I mentioned this to BitMover recently 
[though its certainly not a new comment], when they asked us why I had 
to occasionally blow away the netdev-2.6 tree, and reconstitute it from 
scratch.


> I love BK, but what BK does well is merging and maintaining trees full of 
> good stuff. What BK sucks at is experimental stuff where you don't know 
> whether something should be eventually used or not.

I use BitKeeper to maintain such a tree, "libata-dev".  Most stuff in 
there will go upstream.  Some stuff may never go upstream.  Some stuff 
needs to simmer for a while before going upstream.  So "change streams" 
get divided up locally:

[jgarzik@pretzel libata-dev]$ ls -FC
adma/          atapi-enable/        janitor/            remove-one-fix/
adma-mwi/      bridge-detect/       passthru/           sata-sil-irq/
ahci-msi/      chs-support/         pdc2027x/           tf-cleanup/
ahci-tf-read/  ioctl-get-identity/  pdc20619/           via-6421/
iomap/         promise-sata-pata/

and then I cherrypick from that.

netdev-2.6 queue is maintained the same way.  It's simply a merge tree 
composed of 40+ individual trees, all merged together.

	Jeff