From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160711171146.GD3701@sirena.org.uk> References: <20160709000631.GB8989@io.lakedaemon.net> <1468024946.2390.21.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20160709093626.GA6247@sirena.org.uk> <5781148F.1010102@roeck-us.net> <20160709212130.GC26097@thunk.org> <20160711151300.GB3701@sirena.org.uk> <20160711170333.GE3890@thunk.org> <20160711171146.GD3701@sirena.org.uk> From: Olof Johansson Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 10:13:56 -0700 Message-ID: To: Mark Brown Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113fbb5a217f0c05375f477d Cc: James Bottomley , ksummit-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org, Jason Cooper Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] stable workflow List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --001a113fbb5a217f0c05375f477d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Mark Brown 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 --001a113fbb5a217f0c05375f477d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org&= gt; 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&#= 39;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.

<= /div>

-Olof

--001a113fbb5a217f0c05375f477d--