From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933214AbYEUP1q (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2008 11:27:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S934419AbYEUP1b (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2008 11:27:31 -0400 Received: from smtpq1.groni1.gr.home.nl ([213.51.130.200]:54149 "EHLO smtpq1.groni1.gr.home.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754401AbYEUP1a (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2008 11:27:30 -0400 Message-ID: <48343FF4.8090107@keyaccess.nl> Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 17:29:56 +0200 From: Rene Herman User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Takashi Iwai CC: Jaroslav Kysela , ALSA development , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel , Stephen Rothwell Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] HG -> GIT migration References: <200805211430.06653.linux@audioscience.com> <483415E7.5080402@keyaccess.nl> <48341DF5.4090307@keyaccess.nl> <48343465.2030905@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 16:52, Takashi Iwai wrote: > At Wed, 21 May 2008 16:40:37 +0200, > Rene Herman wrote: >> 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 thought linux-next does fresh merges at each time, thus it doesn't > matter whether a subsystem tree is rebased or not... Let's ask... Fresh merges at each release boundary certainly but if it drops/remerges each subsystem when a bug in its for-next branch is found (a supposedly non rare occurence) all the hopefully hundreds or even thousands of linux-next pullers/testers would seem to have to deal with all those completely new merges everytime as well. I'd hope linux-next during a single release would just pull in the one fix (the subsystem's for-linus branch can still fold it in). Rene.