[alsa-devel] HG -> GIT migration
tiwai at suse.de
Wed May 21 16:52:24 CEST 2008
At Wed, 21 May 2008 16:40:37 +0200,
Rene Herman wrote:
> 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 thought linux-next does fresh merges at each time, thus it doesn't
matter whether a subsystem tree is rebased or not...
More information about the Alsa-devel