From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935774AbYEUOiZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2008 10:38:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757049AbYEUOiP (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2008 10:38:15 -0400 Received: from smtpq1.groni1.gr.home.nl ([213.51.130.200]:54322 "EHLO smtpq1.groni1.gr.home.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756580AbYEUOiO (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2008 10:38:14 -0400 Message-ID: <48343465.2030905@keyaccess.nl> Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 16:40:37 +0200 From: Rene Herman User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jaroslav Kysela CC: Takashi Iwai , ALSA development , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] HG -> GIT migration References: <200805211430.06653.linux@audioscience.com> <483415E7.5080402@keyaccess.nl> <48341DF5.4090307@keyaccess.nl> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 21-05-08 15:48, Jaroslav Kysela wrote: > On Wed, 21 May 2008, Rene Herman wrote: >> It's "worse" than that; rebasing is designed for a _private_ development >> model. git-rebase is a very handy tool for people like myself (people >> without a downstream that is) and it basically enables the quilt model >> of a stack of patches on top of git but public trees that have people >> pulling from them should generally not rebase or everyone who _is_ >> pulling finds a different tree each time. > > I don't see big obstacles with this model. You can do changes in your > local tree and when 'git pull' fails from the subsystem tree, pull new > subsystem tree to a new branch and do rebasing in your local tree, too. > > Rebasing can keep the subsystem tree more clean I think. It's only > about to settle an appropriate workflow. I'm also still frequently trying to figure out an/the efficient way of using GIT but it does seem it's not just a matter of "pure downstream" (which I do believe ALSA has few enough of to not make this be a huge problem). For example linux-next is also going to want to pull in ALSA and say it does, finds a trivial conflict with the trivial tree that it also pulls in and fixes things up. If you rebase that which linux-next pulls from I believe it will have to redo the fix next time it pulls from you since it's getting all those new changesets. I guess this can be avoided by just not rebasing that which linux-next is pulling... and I in fact don't even know if linux-next does any conflict resolution itself, trivial or otherwise. I'll see how things work out. Rene.