Re: : Networking

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Date: Apr 26, 2005, 19:13 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0504261209470.18901@ppc970.osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <20050426115609.0481401b.akpm@osdl.org>

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:

> 
> I don't know if it'll be successful continually merging all those trees
> together.  The way I did this with bk was to have a separate repo for each
> tree, but I don't think I'll want 30-40 separate git trees.

You really don't. With git, the only thing you need is one object store, and some way to _track_ those 30-40 separate git trees (and "track" really means "remember a single SHA1 name for their top-of-tree").

Then you can merge any combination of the 40 in the same tree.

You'll get confused easily, but if you do this all with tools, it shouldn't be too bad.

> So hm.  I guess git did what it was supposed to do here, and that a `git
> merge' would have removed the common patch.  But if I take the approach of
> merging all those subsystem trees I do wonder if things will come
> unstuck...

Well, git isn't as good at merging as BK is, and your usage sure as hell would be a horrible worst-case example, but it might actually work fine. Git merges are _cheap_ (with a capital C, and probably H as well) when they work out, and quite frankly, so far they have always worked out for me.

But yeah, you'd be doing some pretty aggressive merging, using a tool that is two weeks old. It might work. I'd be interested to know ;)

		Linus