From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Woodhouse Subject: Re: Merge with git-pasky II. Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 16:09:03 +0100 Message-ID: <1113577744.27227.53.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> References: <7v64ypsqev.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vvf6pr4oq.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20050414121624.GZ25711@pasky.ji.cz> <7vll7lqlbg.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <1113556448.12012.269.camel@baythorne.infradead.org> <20050415093649.GA28077@elte.hu> <1113559533.12012.296.camel@baythorne.infradead.org> <20050415145324.GA4677@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Linus Torvalds , Junio C Hamano , Petr Baudis , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Apr 15 17:06:44 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DMSOC-0000jI-SN for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:05:49 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261777AbVDOPJR (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:09:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261830AbVDOPJR (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:09:17 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:49053 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261777AbVDOPJM (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:09:12 -0400 Received: from nat-pool-stn.redhat.com ([62.200.124.98] helo=hades.cambridge.redhat.com) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.43 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1DMSRN-0006md-LK; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 16:09:06 +0100 To: Ingo Molnar In-Reply-To: <20050415145324.GA4677@elte.hu> X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.4 (2.0.4-1.dwmw2.1) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 16:53 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > but the specific scenario you described would require _Linus'_ tree to > be in limbo for a long time, and have uncommitted half-done edits. > I.e.: > > (A1B2)--(A2B2)--(A2'B3) > / \ / \ > / \ / \ > (A1B1) X (...) > \ / \ / > \ / \ / > (A2B1)--(A2B2)--(A3B2') > > in the above scenario Linus' tree needs to 'cross' with a maintainer's > tree. (maintainer's tree wont cross with another maintainer's tree, > as maintainer-to-maintainer merges rare.) Is that true? Consider (A2B1) to be a bugfixes-only tree which I make available for Linus to pull from. I keep doing more experimental stuff in my own private copy of the tree along the bottom branch, while Linus _eventually_ responds to my pull request and moves on, stopping only to add a 'static' to one of my new functions. I move on too but don't pull from Linus again for a little while; the final merge happens when I _do_ pull again. -- dwmw2