why no -mm git tree?

why no -mm git tree?

[Coywolf Qi Hunt]

hello,

Why don't use a -mm git tree? Maybe it was time for it.
With a -mm git tree, we can help -mm test much earlier and quicker,
and no more need of the mm-commits ML.

Also an option, to use git, and still gernerate broken-out from git.
-- 
Coywolf Qi Hunt

Re: why no -mm git tree?

[Jeff Garzik]

Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
> hello,
> 
> Why don't use a -mm git tree? Maybe it was time for it.
> With a -mm git tree, we can help -mm test much earlier and quicker,

A -mm git tree would be nice.


> and no more need of the mm-commits ML.

Strongly disagree.


> Also an option, to use git, and still gernerate broken-out from git.

AFAICT from akpm's workflow, it would be far easier to generate a git 
tree from his pile of patches, than the other way around.

	Jeff

Re: why no -mm git tree?

[Andrew Morton]

Coywolf Qi Hunt <qiyong@fc-cn.com> wrote:
>
> Why don't use a -mm git tree?
>

Because everthing would take me 100x longer?

I'm looking into generating a pullable git tree for each -mm.  Just as a
convenience for people who can't type "ftp".

That'll just be a dump of the whole -mm lineup into git.  I don't know how
workable it'll be - we'll see.

Re: why no -mm git tree?

[Coywolf Qi Hunt]

On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 10:44:51PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Coywolf Qi Hunt <qiyong@fc-cn.com> wrote:
> >
> > Why don't use a -mm git tree?
> >
> 
> Because everthing would take me 100x longer?

Really? So does Linus?

> 
> I'm looking into generating a pullable git tree for each -mm.  Just as a
> convenience for people who can't type "ftp".

That doesn't help much if it's only for each -mm.
If you make git commits for each each patch merged in, then
we can always run the `current' -mm git tree.

Test the -mm patches, not leave them sleeping for most of the time.

> 
> That'll just be a dump of the whole -mm lineup into git.  I don't know how
> workable it'll be - we'll see.
> 

-- 
Coywolf Qi Hunt

Re: why no -mm git tree?

[Andrew Morton]

Coywolf Qi Hunt <qiyong@fc-cn.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 10:44:51PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Coywolf Qi Hunt <qiyong@fc-cn.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Why don't use a -mm git tree?
> > >
> > 
> > Because everthing would take me 100x longer?
> 
> Really? So does Linus?
> 

Linus does a totally different thing from me.

He reverts about one patch a month.  I drop tens a day.

He never _alters_ patches.  2.6.15-mm1 had about 200 patches which modify
earlier patches and which get rolled up into the patch-which-they-modify
before going upstream.

He never alters the order of patches.

etc.

> > 
> > I'm looking into generating a pullable git tree for each -mm.  Just as a
> > convenience for people who can't type "ftp".
> 
> That doesn't help much if it's only for each -mm.
> If you make git commits for each each patch merged in, then
> we can always run the `current' -mm git tree.

Ah.  If you're suggesting that the -mm git tree have _patches_ under git,
and the way of grabbing the -mm tree is to pull everything and to then
apply all the patches under the patches/ directory then yeah, that would
work.

But my tree at any random point in time is a random piece of
doesn't-even-compile-let-alone-run crap, believe me.  Often not all the
patches even apply.  I don't think there's much point in exposing people to
something like that.

Re: why no -mm git tree?

[Paolo Ciarrocchi]

On 1/11/06, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:
> Coywolf Qi Hunt <qiyong@fc-cn.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 10:44:51PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Coywolf Qi Hunt <qiyong@fc-cn.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Why don't use a -mm git tree?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Because everthing would take me 100x longer?
> >
> > Really? So does Linus?
> >
>
> Linus does a totally different thing from me.
>
> He reverts about one patch a month.  I drop tens a day.
>
> He never _alters_ patches.  2.6.15-mm1 had about 200 patches which modify
> earlier patches and which get rolled up into the patch-which-they-modify
> before going upstream.
>
> He never alters the order of patches.
>
> etc.
>
> > >
> > > I'm looking into generating a pullable git tree for each -mm.  Just as a
> > > convenience for people who can't type "ftp".
> >
> > That doesn't help much if it's only for each -mm.
> > If you make git commits for each each patch merged in, then
> > we can always run the `current' -mm git tree.
>
> Ah.  If you're suggesting that the -mm git tree have _patches_ under git,
> and the way of grabbing the -mm tree is to pull everything and to then
> apply all the patches under the patches/ directory then yeah, that would
> work.
>
> But my tree at any random point in time is a random piece of
> doesn't-even-compile-let-alone-run crap, believe me.  Often not all the
> patches even apply.  I don't think there's much point in exposing people to
> something like that.

Andew,
did you consider Stacked GIT as an alternative to quilt ?

--
Paolo

Re: why no -mm git tree?

[Andrew Morton]

Paolo Ciarrocchi <paolo.ciarrocchi@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ah.  If you're suggesting that the -mm git tree have _patches_ under git,
>  > and the way of grabbing the -mm tree is to pull everything and to then
>  > apply all the patches under the patches/ directory then yeah, that would
>  > work.
>  >
>  > But my tree at any random point in time is a random piece of
>  > doesn't-even-compile-let-alone-run crap, believe me.  Often not all the
>  > patches even apply.  I don't think there's much point in exposing people to
>  > something like that.
> 
>  Andew,
>  did you consider Stacked GIT as an alternative to quilt ?

I looked at the web page - stgit seems to be broken-out patches
revision-controlled under git.  I don't think that affects any of the
considerations I've outlined?

Re: why no -mm git tree?

[J. Bruce Fields]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:11:25AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Paolo Ciarrocchi <paolo.ciarrocchi@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  did you consider Stacked GIT as an alternative to quilt ?
> 
> I looked at the web page - stgit seems to be broken-out patches
> revision-controlled under git.

It doesn't really attempt to do revision control on the patches.

--b.