Re: Stupid git question...

Jeff Kirsher
2015-12-12T08:05:09Z

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Valdis Kletnieks
<Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
> OK.. Here's the situation - I've got several sets of patches I'll probably
> be cooking over the holidays, and I'm planning to base on linux-next (though
> any other moving-target base has the same issues).
>
> What I *want* to accomplish:
>
> At any given point, linux-next may or may not have breakages that cause
> me grief (anything from compile issues to can't-boot-to-multiuser crashes).
> What's the *clean* way to accomplish the following:
>
> <assume I have a current linux-next/master copied to my box>
>
> git branch --track linux-next/master local-fixes
>
> git branch --track local-fixes project-1
> git branch --track local-fixes project-2
> git branch --track local-fixes project-3
>
> Basically, have some way to keep track of the small integer number of
> local things that I don't want escaping if I do a 'git format-patch project-2'
> or other similar thing, and so I only have to deal with doing the local
> fix once. Just dropping commits on top of linux-next doesn't seem right, as
> it could get ugly the next 'git remote update'.
>
> What are maintainers doing to deal with similar issues, where you need to
> make sure that your test builds in fact contain unrelated commits needed for
> the build to be testable?

Look at stacked git (stgit), it can resolve a number of the issues you
seem to be running into. It makes it easy to modify patches in a
series and you can easily update your tree.

--
Cheers,
Jeff