ST-Ericsson ux500 BSP contents
arnd at arndb.de
Fri Nov 12 13:36:25 UTC 2010
On Friday 12 November 2010, Linus Walleij wrote:
> 2010/9/29 Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de>:
> > I think you need to stop basing on top of linux-next and
> > move to basing on top of the smallest possible set of trees
> > other than mainline.
> Sorry for learning and fixing delays...
Welcome to the Linaro team by the way!
> I have now created a tree based on Torvalds' clean
> v2.6.37-rc1 that is available straight off kernel.org:
> NOTE: I am no Jedi yet. I still have to learn a few
> things about git I believe, right now this is really a -next
> type tree where I rebase the topic branches partly against
> each other, so it is being pushed out with forced updates,
> sometimes changing a lot of stuff inside the branches.
Ok, that sounds good. If you have trouble with git, feel free
to ask us any time on IRC or jabber.
Basing multiple branches on top of one another is a bit unusual,
but it's fine as long as it works for you.
What other people have found useful there is to strictly separate
topic branches where possible and only pull in common branches to
resolve the hardest conflicts, e.g. have one main branch with
all the changes that multiple other branches depend on, but then
never rebase this branch, so you can avoid having to rebase other
branches as a result.
It would be nice if you could mark branches that you expect
to rebase frequently (e.g. your next branch) as opposed to those
that only get stuff on top. This helps other people that may
want to build on top of your work.
You might also want to look at "git rerere", which makes it
easier for you to track merge conflicts between otherwise
independent topic branches.
> > Today's series seems to apply almost cleanly on top of
> > Russell's ARM tree, so as a start, you can create one git
> > tree based on his and apply all your patches on top.
> Right now this is just plain old v2.6.37-rc1 since Russell
> merged a lot of the stuff we wanted into that RC.
> But if desired by the other members I can sure move over
> to Russells tree as a baseline.
It's not a big difference. As long you don't have dependencies
on Russell's branch, staying on a mainline base should make
it slightly easier for you.
If you decide to base on top of Russell's tree, make to use
a non-rebasing tree as a base.
> Now we only need to mainline a few thousand patches
> of platform support :-)
Just to make sure I understood you correctly: Do you mean
more patches that you need to add to your tree, or getting
everything from your tree upstream?
More information about the linaro-dev