From: Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>
Organization: Boundaries Unlimited
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [git patches] 2.6.x libata updates
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 17:31:46 -0600
User-Agent: KMail/1.8
Cc: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
       linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20051029182228.GA14495@havoc.gtf.org> <200510300644.20225.rob@landley.net> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0510301435520.27915@g5.osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0510301435520.27915@g5.osdl.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200510301731.47825.rob@landley.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 915
Lines: 26

On Sunday 30 October 2005 16:36, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Is this a viable option?
>
> No.
>
> There is no "ordering" in a distributed environment. We have things
> happening in parallel, adn you can't really linearize the patches.
>
> The closest you can get is "git bisect", which does the right thing.
>
>   Linus

I know there isn't an absolute or stable ordering, but can't a temporary 
ordering be exported?

I was under the impression that the bk->cvs gateway squashed changes into a 
sort of order, way back when.  Admittedly this order wasn't stable, and new 
changes perturbed the whole list.  But just for debugging purposes with a 
"patch vs last -rc"?

Rob
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/