Re: Merge with git-pasky II.

From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Date: Apr 15, 2005, 14:53 UTC
Message-ID: <20050415145324.GA4677@elte.hu>
In-Reply-To: <1113559533.12012.296.camel@baythorne.infradead.org>

* David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 11:36 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > do such cases occur frequently? In the kernel at least it's not too 
> > typical. 
> 
> Isn't it? I thought it was a fairly accurate representation of the 
> process "I make a whole bunch of changes to files I maintain, pulling 
> from Linus while occasionally asking him to pull from my tree. 
> Sometimes my files are changed by someone else in Linus' tree, and 
> sometimes I change files that I don't actually own.".

but the specific scenario you described would require _Linus'_ tree to be in limbo for a long time, and have uncommitted half-done edits. I.e.:

   (A1B2)--(A2B2)--(A2'B3)
    /  \   /            \
   /    \ /              \
 (A1B1)  X               (...)
   \    / \              /
    \  /   \            /
   (A2B1)--(A2B2)--(A3B2')

in the above scenario Linus' tree needs to 'cross' with a maintainer's tree. (maintainer's tree wont cross with another maintainer's tree, as maintainer-to-maintainer merges rare.)

but for the scenario to occur, i think there needs to be a prolongued "limbo" period in Linus' tree for a 'crossing' to happen. But Linus' merges are typically almost atomic: they are done then they are pushed out. It's definitely not in the 'days, sometimes weeks' timescale as maintainer trees are.

so for the scenario to occur, a maintainer, from whom Linus has just pulled an update and Linus is merging the tree manually without comitting, has to pull a file from the earlier Linus tree, and then Linus has to modify that same file again. This does not seem to be a common scenario.

so i think to avoid the scenario, maintainers should not pull from each other - they should only pull/push to/from Linus' tree. Maybe this is an unacceptable limitation?

	Ingo