Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932224AbWI0IFI (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Sep 2006 04:05:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932229AbWI0IFI (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Sep 2006 04:05:08 -0400 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.233]:25014 "EHLO wx-out-0506.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932224AbWI0IFE (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Sep 2006 04:05:04 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=T18c1WASUgJhXrg10HBdWqUmilwwcBkFd8rSYQMpk1pX8xqs28vZ9Uy02MYdw1850DD8NZ+IFBEucQ77pMbyC3bMbv4+o0/xJU0NDjqJagfTAyVLytXqhB0AcT1UDCRPDCsQTyhhcxG1pgCxuHjSepgYEKkZOwKbNO7WbGMRVlU= Message-ID: <4d8e3fd30609270105pee59188p8043dda694878e36@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 10:05:03 +0200 From: "Paolo Ciarrocchi" To: "Linus Torvalds" Subject: Re: x86/x86-64 merge for 2.6.19 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200609261244.43863.ak@suse.de> <200609262202.28846.ak@suse.de> <200609262226.09418.ak@suse.de> <4d8e3fd30609261425ob262489nec1240f5a0c5050f@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1913 Lines: 50 On 9/26/06, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006, Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote: > > > > out of curiosity, wouldn't be better to sync with Andrew via git? > > Why via plain patches? > > > > What am I missing? > > I think you're just missing that we've become so used to it that it's just > easier than all the alternatives. Umh.. good point ;) > Also, the way we do things with Andrew actually has a few advantages over > a straight git-to-git merge. In particular, when Andrew sends me his > current stable quilt queue, every email is also Cc'd to the people who > sent it to him originally or were otherwise involved. I forgot that Andrew is CC'ing the "author" of the patch when he sends to you the email. > So the very act of transferring the patches from one tree to another > sometimes produces an extra acknowledgement cycle, and we've had patches > that got NACK'ed at that point because it was an older version of the > patch etc. > > Now, I suspect this is more of an advantage with Andrew's tree than with > most other trees (most other trees tend to have a much stricter focus), > and perhaps equally importantly, it also wouldn't really work very well if > _everybody_ did it, so I personally believe this is one of those > situations where what's good for _one_ case may not actually be wonderful > for _all_ cases. > > I think it's worked out pretty well, no? Oh yes! I just did the mistake to think that the work flow of Andrew was similar to the one used by Andy. And that's clearly a mistake. Thanks for the clarification. Ciao, -- Paolo http://paolo.ciarrocchi.googlepages.com http://picasaweb.google.com/paolo.ciarrocchi - 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/