On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 11:11:56 +0200
Nélio Laranjeiro wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:22:23AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 14/09/2017 04:25, Stephen Hemminger:
> > > Bisecting a tree with lots of subtree merges is terrible. That is why
> > > Linus
> > > rebases and doesn't directly take
> On Sep 14, 2017, at 4:18 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>
> 14/09/2017 11:03, Bruce Richardson:
>> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:22:23AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 14/09/2017 04:25, Stephen Hemminger:
Bisecting a tree with lots of subtree merges is terrible. That is why Linus
rebases
14/09/2017 11:03, Bruce Richardson:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:22:23AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 14/09/2017 04:25, Stephen Hemminger:
> > > Bisecting a tree with lots of subtree merges is terrible. That is why
> > > Linus
> > > rebases and doesn't directly take linux-next
> >
> > I agre
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:22:23AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 14/09/2017 04:25, Stephen Hemminger:
> > Bisecting a tree with lots of subtree merges is terrible. That is why Linus
> > rebases and doesn't directly take linux-next
>
> I agree, bisecting with subtree merges is not pleasant at all
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:22:23AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 14/09/2017 04:25, Stephen Hemminger:
> > Bisecting a tree with lots of subtree merges is terrible. That is why Linus
> > rebases and doesn't directly take linux-next
>
> I agree, bisecting with subtree merges is not pleasant at all
14/09/2017 04:25, Stephen Hemminger:
> Bisecting a tree with lots of subtree merges is terrible. That is why Linus
> rebases and doesn't directly take linux-next
I agree, bisecting with subtree merges is not pleasant at all.
That's why I chose the rebase method until now.
Adrien mentioned some dr
On Sep 13, 2017 7:54 AM, "Adrien Mazarguil"
wrote:
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 02:21:00PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 9/13/2017 1:25 PM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:38:37PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> >> On 9/13/2017 8:58 AM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 02:21:00PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 9/13/2017 1:25 PM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:38:37PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> >> On 9/13/2017 8:58 AM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 09:32:07AM +0100, Bruce Ri
On 9/13/2017 1:25 PM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:38:37PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 9/13/2017 8:58 AM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 09:32:07AM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:03:30AM +0200, Thomas Monj
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:38:37PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 9/13/2017 8:58 AM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 09:32:07AM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> >> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:03:30AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> As you kno
On 9/13/2017 8:58 AM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 09:32:07AM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:03:30AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> As you know I am currently the only maintainer of the master tree.
>>> It is very conven
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 09:32:07AM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:03:30AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As you know I am currently the only maintainer of the master tree.
> > It is very convenient because I need to synchronize with others
> > o
12/09/2017 18:32, Ferruh Yigit:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On 9/11/2017 11:03 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > I feel it is the good time to move to a slightly different organization.
> > I am working closely with Ferruh Yigit for almost one year, as next-net
> > maintainer, and I think it would be very effic
On 9/12/2017 9:48 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 12/09/2017 10:32, Bruce Richardson:
>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:03:30AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> [...]
>>> At the same time, we can think how to add more git sub-trees:
>>
>> In principle, I'm in favour, but I think that the subtrees of the ma
Hi Thomas,
On 9/11/2017 11:03 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As you know I am currently the only maintainer of the master tree.
> It is very convenient because I need to synchronize with others
> only when pulling "next-*" trees.
> But the drawback is that I should be available very oft
> On Sep 12, 2017, at 3:48 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>
> 12/09/2017 10:32, Bruce Richardson:
>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:03:30AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> [...]
>>> At the same time, we can think how to add more git sub-trees:
>>
>> In principle, I'm in favour, but I think that the sub
12/09/2017 10:32, Bruce Richardson:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:03:30AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
[...]
> > At the same time, we can think how to add more git sub-trees:
>
> In principle, I'm in favour, but I think that the subtrees of the master
> tree should be at a fairly coarse granularit
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:03:30AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As you know I am currently the only maintainer of the master tree.
> It is very convenient because I need to synchronize with others
> only when pulling "next-*" trees.
> But the drawback is that I should be available v
Hi all,
As you know I am currently the only maintainer of the master tree.
It is very convenient because I need to synchronize with others
only when pulling "next-*" trees.
But the drawback is that I should be available very often to
avoid stalled patches waiting in patchwork backlog.
I feel it i
19 matches
Mail list logo
