Hi Rene,
On Wed, 21 May 2008 17:29:56 +0200 Rene Herman rene.herman@keyaccess.nl wrote:
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).
Linux-next is rebuilt every day based on Linus' current kernel. I merge all the trees I have been told about and fixup minor conflicts (sometimes reverting commits, sometimes applying patches). So everyday, linux-next is completely new. I do not care if the trees I am merging get rebased.
I have only had a couple of occasions when the merge conflicts were so bad that I had to drop a whole tree, but they were fixed up the next day.
Linux-next has only one downstream - Andrew's mm tree and he bases on a particular day's linux-next tree each time he rebuilds mm. Testers just need to take the complete tree (which isn't too bad if you are using git since all the linux-next trees share a lot of objects).
Does that answer your question?