Linville update wireless-2.6/everything

[Dan Williams]

On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 16:20 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 10:48 -0500, John W. Linville wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 03:21:32PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > 
> > > > Dan ACKed those patches -- why shouldn't they have been merged?
> > > > Aren't your patches going on top of them?
> > > 
> > > I don't have patches. I use git.
> > 
> > Tomato, tomato...  Ok, there is some difference --
> 
> The important difference is that a 'patch' can be committed many times
> in many different places in many different git trees (or branches).
> That's many _different_ git-commits. But only one patch.
> 
> People who use git will base their work on a given commit. And if that
> commit suddenly disappears in a rebase or re-commit, and never makes it
> into Linus' tree, that's a pain.
> 
> >  it just doesn't matter in most cases -- only for a "clean pull".
> 
> I'm not sure I know what a 'clean pull' means, in this context.
> 
> > > My git commits are going on top of Holgers commits, yes. Commits such as
> > > 6591e36a1c52445f95f26738394909ee9bf94390 for example.
> > > 
> > > But when that change was in your wireless tree and was considered a
> > > 'patch', I believe it was actually a _different_ commit. So I couldn't
> > > just base my git tree on it.
> > 
> > FWIW I haven't rebased 'everything' yet, although I do plan to rebase
> > on -rc4 soon.
> 
> Right. Which is why I chose _not_ to base my git tree on yours, but on
> Linus' tree.
> 
> > > I _thought_ we'd agreed on IRC that I would commit such changes myself,
> > > and they would be in the libertas-2.6.git tree. And you wouldn't commit
> > > them separately to another tree. Perhaps I misunderstood.
> > 
> > I don't really see the conflict.  It just seems to me that the pain
> > is all mine -- when you are done I pull your tree, figure-out which
> > commits are new, and reapply them on top of whatever is current.
> > What is the big deal?
> 
> That's true to a certain extent, but I was trying to _avoid_ causing
> that pain. If you weren't keeping libertas patches in your patch-stack,
> then there would be no pain. You'd just have a clean tree to pull from.
> 
> It also causes pain for me if I intend to _continue_ working on libertas
> after 2.6.25, rewriting more and more parts of it individually until
> there's none of the original bsMarvellCode left. Because you destroy the
> commits in my tree and you send different commits upstream.

Well, then you get to fix up the differences and do a merge commit
before Linville pulls from you after you've sent the pull request.
Which would normally happen anyway of course.  The last thing Linville
needs is _more_ merge work.

Dan