Hi Rene,

On Wed, 21 May 2008 17:29:56 +0200 Rene Herman <rene.herman@keyaccess.nl> w=
rote:
quoted text
>
> On 21-05-08 16:52, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>=20
> > At Wed, 21 May 2008 16:40:37 +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
>=20
> >> I'm also still frequently trying to figure out an/the efficient way of=
=20
quoted text
> >> using GIT but it does seem it's not just a matter of "pure downstream"=
=20
quoted text
> >> (which I do believe ALSA has few enough of to not make this be a huge=
=20
quoted text
> >> problem). For example linux-next is also going to want to pull in ALSA=
=20
quoted text
> >> and say it does, finds a trivial conflict with the trivial tree that i=
t=20
quoted text
> >> also pulls in and fixes things up. If you rebase that which linux-next=
=20
quoted text
> >> pulls from I believe it will have to redo the fix next time it pulls=20
> >> from you since it's getting all those new changesets.
> >>
> >> I guess this can be avoided by just not rebasing that which linux-next=
=20
quoted text
> >> is pulling... and I in fact don't even know if linux-next does any=20
> >> conflict resolution itself, trivial or otherwise.
> >=20
> > I thought linux-next does fresh merges at each time, thus it doesn't
> > matter whether a subsystem tree is rebased or not...
>=20
> Let's ask...
>=20
> Fresh merges at each release boundary certainly but if it drops/remerges=
=20
quoted text
> each subsystem when a bug in its for-next branch is found (a supposedly=20
> non rare occurence) all the hopefully hundreds or even thousands of=20
> linux-next pullers/testers would seem to have to deal with all those=20
> completely new merges everytime as well. I'd hope linux-next during a=20
> single release would just pull in the one fix (the subsystem's for-linus=
=20
quoted text
> branch can still fold it in).

Linux-next is rebuilt every day based on Linus' current kernel.  I merge
all the trees I have been told about and fixup minor conflicts (sometimes
reverting commits, sometimes applying patches).  So everyday, linux-next
is completely new.  I do not care if the trees I am merging get rebased.

I have only had a couple of occasions when the merge conflicts were so
bad that I had to drop a whole tree, but they were fixed up the next day.

Linux-next has only one downstream - Andrew's mm tree and he bases on a
particular day's linux-next tree each time he rebuilds mm.  Testers just
need to take the complete tree (which isn't too bad if you are using git
since all the linux-next trees share a lot of objects).

Does that answer your question?
--=20
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/