From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Albert ARIBAUD Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 16:36:33 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] Pull request: u-boot-tegra/master In-Reply-To: <4EE0E99C.1000404@nvidia.com> References: <7E91C59574E9954FA075F8D8CCDF78DB392DCD5D59@HQMAIL04.nvidia.com> <4EE065AE.4010007@aribaud.net> <4EE0E99C.1000404@nvidia.com> Message-ID: <4EE22B01.3070409@aribaud.net> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi Stephen, Le 08/12/2011 17:45, Stephen Warren a ?crit : > On 12/08/2011 12:22 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: >> Hi Tom, >> >> Le 08/12/2011 00:35, Tom Warren a ?crit : >> >>> Albert, >>> >>> This is my first pull request for u-boot-tegra. Let me know if I?ve >>> screwed it up in any way! >> >> Actually: >> >>> The following changes since commit 3865b6eba83707e1ad134bd42da426fd032948f5: >>> >>> MX35: flea3: changes due to hardware revision B (2011-12-05 18:31:20 +0100) >> >> ... This is not the current u-boot-arm/master branch tip, and rebasing >> on it fails. Please rebase your master branch on top of >> u-boot-arm/master ("davinci: Remove unwanted memsize.c from hawkboard's >> nand spl build", commit id 15422043c4a213dc5d7d59a337be1ab34c9b2e7f) >> then post a new pull request. > > Albert, > > Given that u-boot-arm/master is continually rebased, how would Tom avoid > the following, which I think is what happened: > > 1) pull u-boot-arm/master > 2) apply patches to it > 3) test > 4) send pull request > > ... while between (1) and (4), you've rebased u-boot-arm/master? > > I think in the Linux kernel world, this is avoided by having downstream > branches based on stable branches in Linus' tree rather than directly > on their upstream. This will still allow pull/merge to work fine, but > means that there's never a time window that can invalidate the baseline > the pull requests are based on. > > Would something like this work for U-Boot too? > > Or perhaps, u-boot-arm could publish a stable branch for downstream to > base on, yet allow the rest of master to be rebased as needed? Note: the rules I follow for pulling requests to u-boot-arm/master are actually those applying to u-boot/master, so I guess the issue you are raising with u-boot-arm could occur with u-boot/master as well -- it moves just like u-boot-arm does, after all. That being said, I do not reject pull requests solely because they are not based on current u-boot-arm/master, precisely because I know it is a moving target at times. So if the request is not based on top of u-boot-arm/master, I try a rebase myself and if it succeeds trivially and I feel confident that there will be no interaction with the commits I've added in between, then I just accept the (now rebased) pull request -- this I have just done again a few days ago. If the pull request does not rebase trivially, then I ask the submitter to rebase because he's the best person to understand and solve the rebase conflict. I believe this matches the intent of what you are proposing, but anyway, Wolfgang has the last word -- as usual. :) Amicalement, -- Albert.