Re: Dividing up a large merge.
- From
davidb@quicinc.com <davidb@quicinc.com>
- Date
- Jul 15, 2009, 21:01 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20090715210113.GA18036@huya.quicinc.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <alpine.LNX.2.00.0907151429490.2147@iabervon.org>
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:57:59AM -0700, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
Show 8 quoted lines
> It sounds to me like you're maintaining an internal version that everybody > merges their stuff into, and you periodically merge that with the mainline > kernel (generating a lot of conflicts which have to be resolved at the > same time). Instead of merging the branch that contains a lot of merges, > it would probably be easier to merge into a clone of mainline each of the > things that was merged before. That is, instead of merging less than all > of two trees, you'd merge commits which are not the newest commit on the > branch, choosing ones that individuals can resolve.
That's part of it, although I have a pretty good handle on that part.
The place where this comes up is that people in company X are working on an internal version and company Y are working on a similar internal version. We need to share back and forth between these more frequently than stuff gets into the mainline.
We do rebase at various points, but it takes quite a bit of work, and it's fairly different work than the conflicts I'm concerned with here.
Thanks, David