From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laxman Dewangan Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6 Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 11:37:08 +0530 Message-ID: <56EB9B0C.4050507@nvidia.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from hqemgate15.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.64]:18606 "EHLO hqemgate15.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750925AbcCRGUb (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Mar 2016 02:20:31 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds , Linus Walleij Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" On Friday 18 March 2016 11:37 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:59 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: >> NOTE: tree was a bit dirty and I realized it too late: Laxmans >> devm_gpiochip_add() branch was based on my for-next branch rather >> than my devel branch, making some commits appear twice and >> a file named README.md "Share upstreaming patches" appear and >> then get reverted out by me. >> >> The end result should be clean but the history is a bit messy. > Gaah. I took the tree, but I didn't realize just *how* messy it was. I > doubt you did either. > > Dammit, had I realized just how screwed up that branch was, I'd have > made you re-do it. > > Because that branch is crap. > > And the real reason is is crap isn't a "README.md" file that comes and > goes. The real reason it is crap is that it has a new root commit, and > Laxman has done something TOTALLY INSANE. > > I'm not even sure what insane tool was used to do this, but there's a > new root commit at > > a101ad945113be3d7f283a181810d76897f0a0d6 > > that has no parenthood, and that is only used for a completely bogus > merge (merge commit e5451c8f8330e03ad3cfa16048b4daf961af434f). That's > where the README.md file comes from. > > Git does support the notion of having multiple roots, and it is a > useful thing to have when you merge two different projects with > separate history. In fact, git itself has that, for 'gitk' that was > merged into the main git history. > > We have that in the kernel for the initial btrfs merge too, actually. > btrfs started out outside the full kernel, and had a root of its own > with its own development history, and then it was merged into the > kernel tree under fs/btrfs. > > But this is *not* that. That commit > a101ad945113be3d7f283a181810d76897f0a0d6 is just pure garbage, and the > merge that introduces it is pure shit. > > Dammit, I noticed too late, so now it's out there. How the hell did > that even happen? Why did Laxman do that insane merge? Why did it get > pulled back? > > You actually have to *work* at making shit like this, so I wonder what > workflow you guys had to make that bad merge. It's easy enough to do > with git manually, but it's hard to do by _mistake_. Is there some > broken tool that Laxman uses? > > I'm very annoyed, because while the multi-root situation can be > useful, it can also be confusing as hell. It can cause bisection > problems, and it can just cause people to go "WTF?" > > I need to know what happened and make sure it doesn't happen again. If > this is some intentional workflow by nvidia, it needs to stop *now*. > It's broken shit. > For creating the repo and branch, I just followed the instruction from wiki https://help.github.com/articles/create-a-repo/ and for pushing changes https://help.github.com/articles/fork-a-repo/ I jut use git (git version 2.1.4) for pushing the changes in github repo. There is no other tools used.