>From: David S. Miller
>I think merges with conflicts that need to get resolved by hand create
>a lot of noise and useless information and therefore to me they are
>pointless. But this is just my opinion. It simply works easier to me
>to shuffle the patches in by hand and deal with the rejects one by
>one. It's very much akin to how Andrew's -mm tree works.
I guess in this model you can do all your development with quilt,
and the value of git is a high-bandwidth bransport medium to
replace e-mail.
>I think a clean history is worth an extra few minutes of someone's
>time. And note that subsystem development is largely linear anyways.
Maybe true in your neck of the woods, but not true here.
I have more than a dozen topic branches in my tree, and they mature
at different rates.
When a topic branch is in the test tree and and a follow-up patch
is needed, I check out that topic branch and put the patch
exactly in non-linear 3D history where it is meant to live.
When the topic seems fully baked, I can pull the top of the
branch into the release tree.
-Len
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
