Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932417AbVJaAQ5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Oct 2005 19:16:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932418AbVJaAQ4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Oct 2005 19:16:56 -0500 Received: from xenotime.net ([66.160.160.81]:17075 "HELO xenotime.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S932417AbVJaAQv (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Oct 2005 19:16:51 -0500 Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:16:48 -0800 From: "Randy.Dunlap" To: Rob Landley Cc: torvalds@osdl.org, jgarzik@pobox.com, akpm@osdl.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [git patches] 2.6.x libata updates Message-Id: <20051030161648.1faeb77e.rdunlap@xenotime.net> In-Reply-To: <200510301759.39498.rob@landley.net> References: <20051029182228.GA14495@havoc.gtf.org> <200510300644.20225.rob@landley.net> <200510301759.39498.rob@landley.net> Organization: YPO4 X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.5 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1831 Lines: 46 On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 17:59:39 -0600 Rob Landley wrote: > 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. > > To clarify my thinking: > > It doesn't matter what the ordering is, as long as A) the patches are > separated somehow, B) the resulting kernel from applying any initial subset > (patches 1-X in the series) has some reasonable chance to build and work. > > Any arbitrary order is theoretically fine for (A). Alphabetical by msgid or > sha1sum. Or the order they appear in the changelog. > > It's (B) that's the tricky bit, but not an insoluble problem. "The order > Linux imported them into his tree" might give that. > > > The closest you can get is "git bisect", which does the right thing. > > Ok, so we've already got an order, whatever order git bisect puts them in. > (It doesn't have to be stable between releases, just a snapshot in time of a > set of individual patches which, cumulatively applied,would have the same > effect as the big rc1->rc2 diffs we've been getting.) > > It doesn't sound like it would be _too_ hard to abuse the "git bisect" > mechanism to work out each possible bisection point between -rc1 and -rc1, > and if that can be done why can't it spit out the individual patches (with > descriptions) and cat them together? > > Why wouldn't this work? Why isn't there a linus.git ordering? that can be made to work. --- ~Randy - 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/