Re: Re-done kernel archive - real one?

From: Petr Baudis <pasky@ucw.cz>
Date: Apr 18, 2005, 23:09 UTC
Message-ID: <20050418230941.GN5554@pasky.ji.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20050418235951.D16789@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>

Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 12:59:52AM CEST, I got a letter where Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk> told me that...

> In the case I highlighted, we don't want to end up having to require
> user intervention.  This is a common case here, and was one which was
> entirely scripted with BK.

Well, you can script that

	cd ,,merge && echo 'Merge with Linus' | git ci && cd ..

too. ;-)

But it seems like a good idea to just proceed with commit in case of no conflicts (and possibly have a switch which will tell git merge to just merge, not commit).

Show 16 quoted lines

> Essentially, with BK, at 7am localtime each morning, I'd:
> 
> - update my baseline linux 2.6 tree
> - for each working tree which may be pulled from
>   - if the baseline is a superset
>     - update working tree from baseline
> 
> The net result is that my workflow consisted entirely of:
> 
> 1. commit whatever into working tree
> 2. test
> 3. send linus a pull request
> 4. repeat next day
> 
> The tree resynchronisation happened completely and entirely in the
> background with no user intervention required at all.

And in the case of conflicts...?

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. -- Steve Taylor