From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse•de>
To: Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel•org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb•auug.org.au>,
linux-next@vger•kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger•kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: please clean up the livepatching tree
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2016 09:08:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <s5hk2fvr8uo.wl-tiwai@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1608031124330.22028@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-05 7:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-02 23:31 linux-next: please clean up the livepatching tree Stephen Rothwell
2016-08-02 23:41 ` Jiri Kosina
2016-08-03 1:23 ` Stephen Rothwell
2016-08-03 9:29 ` Jiri Kosina
2016-08-05 7:08 ` Takashi Iwai [this message]
2016-08-05 13:11 ` Jiri Kosina
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2025-08-18 2:14 Stephen Rothwell
2025-08-18 10:32 ` Petr Mladek
2025-08-18 14:00 ` Stephen Rothwell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=s5hk2fvr8uo.wl-tiwai@suse.de \
--to=tiwai@suse$(echo .)de \
--cc=jikos@kernel$(echo .)org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=sfr@canb$(echo .)auug.org.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox