Re: why no -mm git tree?

[Paolo Ciarrocchi]

On 1/11/06, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Coywolf Qi Hunt <qiyong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 10:44:51PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Coywolf Qi Hunt <qiyong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Why don't use a -mm git tree?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Because everthing would take me 100x longer?
> >
> > Really? So does Linus?
> >
>
> Linus does a totally different thing from me.
>
> He reverts about one patch a month.  I drop tens a day.
>
> He never _alters_ patches.  2.6.15-mm1 had about 200 patches which modify
> earlier patches and which get rolled up into the patch-which-they-modify
> before going upstream.
>
> He never alters the order of patches.
>
> etc.
>
> > >
> > > I'm looking into generating a pullable git tree for each -mm.  Just as a
> > > convenience for people who can't type "ftp".
> >
> > That doesn't help much if it's only for each -mm.
> > If you make git commits for each each patch merged in, then
> > we can always run the `current' -mm git tree.
>
> Ah.  If you're suggesting that the -mm git tree have _patches_ under git,
> and the way of grabbing the -mm tree is to pull everything and to then
> apply all the patches under the patches/ directory then yeah, that would
> work.
>
> But my tree at any random point in time is a random piece of
> doesn't-even-compile-let-alone-run crap, believe me.  Often not all the
> patches even apply.  I don't think there's much point in exposing people to
> something like that.

Andew,
did you consider Stacked GIT as an alternative to quilt ?

--
Paolo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/