From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: cl@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] SLAB changes for v2.6.38
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:41:17 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=pvz-ou3_DK0dUSRYCARkwM_X9x7Xpnapjw_Ke@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim0UBNG6bVgBDQsrBhVjS0FSdLbwaipBZGkTeWF@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Linus,
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> A cherry-pick really is nothing but "apply the same patch as a
> different commit".
>
> So there is no way to say "this is already there" - because it really
> isn't. It's a totally different thing. In fact, it would be very wrong
> to filter them out, both from a fundamental design standpoint, but
> also from a usability/reliability standpoint: cherry-picks are by no
> means guaranteed to be identical to the source - like any "re-apply
> the patch in another place" model, the end result is not at all
> guaranteed to be semantically identical simply due to different bases:
> the patches may not even be identical, and even if they are, the
> results of the code may depend on what else is going on.
>
> So don't think of cherry-picks as "the same commit". It's not, and it
> never will be. It's a totally separate commit, they just share some
> superficial commonalities.
OK, I did not know that. Thanks for the explanation!
Is cherry pick still sane from maintainer workflow point of view? I
used to do it the other way - merge bug fixes to an "urgent branch"
and then merge that to the "next branch". I changed my workflow to
apply the patches always to the "next branch" first and only cherry
pick to the "urgent branch" if necessary.
Am I doing it wrong?
Pekka
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-01-11 10:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-01-09 9:13 Pekka Enberg
2011-01-10 16:44 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-01-11 10:41 ` Pekka Enberg [this message]
2011-01-11 16:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-01-11 21:25 ` Tony Luck
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='AANLkTi=pvz-ou3_DK0dUSRYCARkwM_X9x7Xpnapjw_Ke@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=penberg@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox