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.


-Olof