Re: linux-next: please clean up the livepatching tree

[Takashi Iwai]

On Wed, 03 Aug 2016 11:29:02 +0200,
Jiri Kosina wrote:
> 
> 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?

Maybe refreshing merges in for-next branch at each time (or day)
instead of incremental merges?


Takashi