[request pull] intrepid-ports - Rebased to 2.6.25.16 and patched for PS3

Tim Gardner tim.gardner at canonical.com
Mon Sep 22 16:09:15 UTC 2008


Dan Munckton wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 08:07 -0600, Tim Gardner wrote:
>> I sure get a lot of conflicts on the pull. Did you rebase correctly
>> first ?
> 
> Umm. I'm not sure what "correctly" is. These are the steps I followed to
> rebase (on my blog from notes gleaned on this list):
> 
> http://munckfish.net/blog/archive/2008/08/30/ubuntu-ps3-kernel-upstream-syncing/
> 
> If that's the not the correct procedure please let me know and I'll get
> it sorted.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 

I think your method is more complicated then it needs to be. When you
are developing against an upstream tree (which is ubuntu-intrepid-ports
in this case) then you should always keep the common set of patches in
the same order, e.g., you rebase only when upstream rebases. Since its
unlikely that we'll ever rebase the ubuntu-intrepid-ports repo, then
your work flow should be like this:

) git clone git://kernel.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ubuntu-intrepid-ports.git
) Make commits to your local repo
) Request pulls from your local repo

There may still be conflicts if someone else has already made commits to
the same place in the code, but then you just have to resolve the
conflicts by hand. Given the level of activity that I've seen in this
repo, conflicts should be rare.

If there are upstream patches, such as those from 2.6.25.y, then use the
cherry-pick method:

git fetch
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-2.6.25.y.git
git-cherry-pick <SHA1 ID>

rtg
-- 
Tim Gardner tim.gardner at canonical.com




More information about the kernel-team mailing list