[Natty] [ti-omap4] [Pull Request]: 2.6.38.2 based updates

Tim Gardner tim.gardner at canonical.com
Fri Apr 15 13:11:26 UTC 2011


On 04/15/2011 12:55 AM, Andy Green wrote:
> On 04/14/2011 06:21 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
>
> Hi -
>
>>> Exactly, for Linaro release we found it merges several branches from
>>> upstream and stable tree, while for TI OMAP4 patches (come from Sebjan
>>> and Andy Green) are all linear I think.
>>
>> Right: I provided a re-based tree because I knew it would fit well
>> with the Ubuntu regular strategy.
>> But for the future I am open to look at a merge strategy if it's more
>> convenient.
>
> I'm actually carrying two branches that resolve to the same tree. My
> master branch is using rebase against npitre's tree and allows going
> back down the patch stack to refine the patches to feed his tree, but
> for Bryan I keep a for-ubuntu branch with a history. I plan to, and have
> been, adding patches as necessary to keep the diff between the two trees
> at zero.
>
>>>> There seem to be two viable approaches (to my eye), though I am fully
>>>> open to other ideas:
>>>>
>>>> 1) squash the delta into a 'omap4' patch and carry that, or
>>>> 2) accept that this is a merge based tree and develop new handling for
>>>> this kind of tree.
>>
>> From my point of view, I definitely prefer option 2. But the end call
>> belongs to you.
>
> Yeah option 2 is the way forward I think.
>
> -Andy
>
>
>

So, this is all kind of hand wavy. How about some specifics. I've pushed 
Bryan's branch to ti-omap4 and tagged it Ubuntu-2.6.38-1208.11.

What I expect the maintenance team to have to do is something like the 
following (note that ti-omap4 is currently behind master, 
Ubuntu-2.6.38-8.40 v.s. Ubuntu-2.6.38-8.42) :

git checkout -f ti-omap4
git log refs/heads/master

Decide what the last merge point was relative to master, either by 
inspection or because someone created a merge point tag, e.g., 
Ubuntu-2.6.38-8.40-ti-omap4.

git format-patch Ubuntu-2.6.38-8.40..refs/heads/master
git am -3 0*

Then resolve any conflicts, of which there ought to be few. Thoughts?

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



More information about the kernel-team mailing list