From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934108Ab2JXB5w (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2012 21:57:52 -0400 Received: from [65.119.96.30] ([65.119.96.30]:51521 "EHLO mailgw.tensilica.com" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755615Ab2JXB5v convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2012 21:57:51 -0400 From: Marc Gauthier To: Jeff King , Thomas Gleixner CC: Al Viro , Chris Metcalf , LKML , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , Linus Torvalds , Catalin Marinas , "git@vger.kernel.org" , Junio C Hamano Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:06:59 -0700 Subject: RE: [PATCH] tile: support GENERIC_KERNEL_THREAD and GENERIC_KERNEL_EXECVE Thread-Topic: [PATCH] tile: support GENERIC_KERNEL_THREAD and GENERIC_KERNEL_EXECVE Thread-Index: Ac2xaEaiYfRoOwemT4mLA5kHexs5aAAAKeOw Message-ID: <522C1DF17AF50042AD8AE87F7887BD3D0B60880C30@exch.hq.tensilica.com> References: <201210192041.q9JKf7jD003998@farm-0010.internal.tilera.com> <20121019213548.GR2616@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <5082A1F1.3080303@tilera.com> <20121020153401.GT2616@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20121020171643.GU2616@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <5086D432.4070008@tilera.com> <20121023184122.GZ2616@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20121023205119.GA27729@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20121023214717.GA29306@sigill.intra.peff.net> In-Reply-To: <20121023214717.GA29306@sigill.intra.peff.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:25:06PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > The resulting notes are stored in a separate > > > revision-controlled branch > > > > Which branch(es) is/are that ? What are the semantics of that? [...] Nice feature. Can a later commit be eventually be made to reference some set of notes added so far, so they become part of the whole history signed by the HEAD SHA1? hence pulled/pushed automatically as well. Otherwise do you not end up with a forever growing separate tree of notes that loses some of the properties of being behind the head SHA1 (and perhaps less scalable in manageability)? Also that way notes are separate only temporarily. As for automating the inclusion of notes in the flow, can that be conditional on some pattern in the note, so that e.g. the Acked-by's get included and folded in automatically, whereas others do not, according to settings? -Marc