[ewg] Re: [ofa-general] ANNOUNCE ofed backports for 2.6.22 kernel bits

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

> Quoting Arthur Jones <arthur.jones at qlogic.com>:
> Subject: Re: [ofa-general] ANNOUNCE ofed backports for 2.6.22 kernel bits
> 
> hi michael, ...
> 
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 06:09:09PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > Quoting Arthur Jones <arthur.jones at qlogic.com>:
> > > Subject: Re: [ofa-general] ANNOUNCE ofed backports for 2.6.22 kernel bits
> > > 
> > > hi michael, ...
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 06:03:41AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > But I also see a serious problem with addressing: basically
> > > > git tracks content. It's not designed to track a bush
> > > > of branches taken together.  For example, take tagging:
> > > > tag namespace is global, so you can not have the same
> > > > tag point at multiple branches at the same time.
> > > 
> > > agreed.  however, the way we use git, with the
> > > location of the git DB as the "tag", it's not
> > > really a problem in practice.
> > 
> > who uses git this way?
> 
> i do.
> 
> > > but tagging each
> > > branch separately is indeed a PITA...
> > 
> > This is just one problem.
> > For example, git pull can only merge one branch at a time.
> 
> how is this a problem?  the way i use git,
> i use a script to "reflow" the changes into
> the dependent branches.  over the last few
> months, anyway, it has worked fine...

Precisely because no one developed on these branches,
so you are re-generating themfrom patches - not a problem,
but as you point out not too useful either.

If people start developing on these branches, then
eventually you will need to merge them - and git only merges
them one at a time.

-- 
MST