From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matt McCutchen Subject: Re: How to switch kernel customizations from 2.6.15.6 to 2.6.16? Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 16:50:59 -0500 Message-ID: <1143755459.2487.12.camel@mattlaptop.metaesthetics.net> References: <1143596622.2481.10.camel@mattlaptop.metaesthetics.net> <7vmzfac7gn.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <1143687710.2524.1.camel@mattlaptop.metaesthetics.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Mar 30 23:51:26 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FP52o-0008Cc-Ug for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 23:51:07 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751014AbWC3VvD (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Mar 2006 16:51:03 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751016AbWC3VvD (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Mar 2006 16:51:03 -0500 Received: from vms040pub.verizon.net ([206.46.252.40]:19944 "EHLO vms040pub.verizon.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751014AbWC3VvB (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Mar 2006 16:51:01 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.5] ([68.239.98.224]) by vms040.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.02 (built Sep 9 2005)) with ESMTPA id <0IWY00JM8ND0UPE6@vms040.mailsrvcs.net> for git@vger.kernel.org; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 15:51:01 -0600 (CST) In-reply-to: To: Linus Torvalds X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.0 (2.6.0-1) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 09:32 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > The beauty of git should be (and maybe that's not entirely true simply > because of practical concerns) that there really need not be any notion of > "more official". I understand this, and it is one of several reasons why I prefer git to other version control systems. However, I thought there would be a single official kernel repository even if git didn't require it. Junio explained to me that both yours and the stable one are official for different purposes. I think I will use the stable one because it is current enough for my needs. > - the more fundamental one is that when you start mixing branches, you > have to be very careful if you expect the upstream projects to pull the > changes _back_. [...] True. It might help several branches coordinate development if a commit could be marked as "equivalent" to another commit so that, if both were involved in a merge, one could be thrown out. -- Matt McCutchen hashproduct@verizon.net http://hashproduct.metaesthetics.net/