On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:13:56AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 01:03:33PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

> > > Very few people will actually be merging them, and in fact maybe
> > > having a patch queue which is checked into git might actually work
> > > better, since it sounds like most people are just cherry-picking
> > > specific patches.

> > I think at this point even if people are cherry picking patches it's
> > probably still going to be easier for people to work with a git tree
> > than anything else - the workflow for git cherry-pick, looking for
> > dependent patches and so on is pretty clear, the upstream commit IDs are
> > there if you prefer to go direct to them and if you really do want a raw
> > patch stack then it's easy to translate into one.

> Yeah, git-backed is much preferred -- you can easily do git log on a
> subdirectory, git annotate file contents, etc.

Probably also worth mentioning that this was one of the blockers for
getting kernelci.org testing Greg's queue for quite a while - it only
knows how to consume git branches.