linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.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 08:13:09 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <AANLkTiknwXJF+pLJFQPqa7XPywi=boz-H+_JLk-T+Zp8@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=pvz-ou3_DK0dUSRYCARkwM_X9x7Xpnapjw_Ke@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Is cherry pick still sane from maintainer workflow point of view?

Yes, if it's the occasional random thing that happens once or twice,
it's much easier than a separate branch and merging it into other
branches.

We have the exact same thing happen every once in a while simply
because two people apply the same emailed patch to their trees. You
end up with the same diff and the same message. Yeah, it's not called
a "cherry-pick" then, but there's really not any technical difference
apart from the commands to generate the "duplicate" commits.

It can become a problem if there's a _lot_ of it going on, though. It
can cause subsequent merge issues if there are other changes in the
same area, for example. And it can be a sign of some bad workflow.

You could also simply think of it in terms of "number of extra
commits". If you cherry-pick and it shows up as one extra commit,
that's still easier to understand and fewer overall commits than
having a separate branch with just one commit, and then two merge
commits - to merge that special branch into the two branches you care
about.

Using that rough guideline, if you have three or more of these, it
would actually be better to have them in one branch, and then merge
that stable branch twice - fewer extraneous commits (but that also
requires that you don't merge after each one.

That said, "number of commits" is not a really meaningful measure
either. I really tend to like how the ACPI tree does things, with
separate branches for separate bugzilla entries - with nice relevant
branch naming (bug number or description) - and then merging them. At
that point you may well have a branch with just a single commit in it,
but now the extra merge actually _adds_ information and the history
looks better for it.

So there are no hard rules. I personally use "gitk" after pulling, and
quite frankly, "clean history" is pretty damn obvious.

                                Linus

--
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>

  reply	other threads:[~2011-01-11 16:13 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
2011-01-11 16:13     ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
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='AANLkTiknwXJF+pLJFQPqa7XPywi=boz-H+_JLk-T+Zp8@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=penberg@kernel.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