Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1455739
| From | Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: linux-next: please clean up the livepatching tree |
| Date | 2016-08-03 12:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <s21Ul-1q9-13@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <s1RrX-2SO-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <s1RLo-2ZL-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <s1Tk6-42G-29@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > This is a part we keep discussing from time to time, and I still don't > > understand why it bothers you so much. The only reason is to keep the > > branch non-rebasing, because it has downstreams. Code-wise, it's > > always equivalent to what end up being merged, but without the actual > > superfluous merge commits. > > The problem from my point of view is that git seems to take more time > to merge the tree into linux-next (I know this isn't much for just one > tree, but I currently have over 200 trees to merge each day). Because of merge commits the number of which is below 100? That's an interesting observation and quite unexpected bottleneck in git. > Also, having all those extra merges complicates the structure of my tree > and presumably makes it harder for git to merge other trees. Its also > possible (I have seen this in other trees) for the merge commits > themselves to generate conflicts with (merge) commits in Linus' and > other trees. > > Also, I am not sure why you have a branch that ask Linus to merge > separate from the branch you have me merge? Exactly to avoid Linus' tree being polluted by the extra merge commits. My workflow is really simple -- development happens in (a lot of) topic branches, and each and every time any of the topic branches is updated by a new commit, that topic branch gets merged into for-next. Once code should go to Linus, the branches are merged at once into 'for-linus' brach, and it's guaranteed to be code-wise the same as what was gradually appearing in for-next. What other workflow do you suggest for maintainers like me, who are using a lot of topic branches? If this is so bothering for you, I'd just start instructing for-next downstreams to stop using that branch so that it could be easily rebased. Thanks, -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
linux-next: please clean up the livepatching tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2016-08-03 01:40 +0200
Re: linux-next: please clean up the livepatching tree Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org> - 2016-08-03 02:00 +0200
Re: linux-next: please clean up the livepatching tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2016-08-03 03:40 +0200
Re: linux-next: please clean up the livepatching tree Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org> - 2016-08-03 12:50 +0200
Re: linux-next: please clean up the livepatching tree Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> - 2016-08-05 09:10 +0200
Re: linux-next: please clean up the livepatching tree Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org> - 2016-08-05 15:20 +0200
csiph-web