Hi,
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> In a sense we are still exploring possible/desirable workflows and what
> the missing pieces are. And yes, some thing don't quite make sense from
> the outside, perhaps because they just don't or because we arent'
> explaining them very well.
Maybe what is needed here is this:
T1 - T2 .. Tn .. Tp
\ \ \
\ M1 M2
\ / /
B1 .. Bm .. Bo
where T1..Tp are the upstream commits, B1..Bo are the local commits, and
M1.. are the test merges just to make sure nothing breaks?
As long as the Mx commits resolve automatically, no need for an explicit
merge in the Bx commits, since a pull from B into T will just recreate an
Mx as next commit in T.
Kind of "throw away merge".
Ciao,
Dscho
-
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]
