Re: [PATCH] write-tree performance problems
- From
- David Lang <david.lang@digitalinsight.com>
- Date
- Apr 19, 2005, 22:09 UTC
- Message-ID
- <Pine.LNX.4.62.0504191508060.26365@qynat.qvtvafvgr.pbz>
- In-Reply-To
- <Pine.LNX.4.58.0504191143220.19286@ppc970.osdl.org>
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Show 14 quoted lines
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Chris Mason wrote: >> >> Very true, you can't replace quilt with git without ruining both of them. But >> it would be nice to take a quilt tree and turn it into a git tree for merging >> purposes, or to make use of whatever visualization tools might exist someday. > > Fair enough. The thing is, going from quilt->git really is a pretty "big > decision", since it's the decision that says "I will now really commit all > this quilt changes forever and ever". > > Which is also why I think it's actually ok to take a minute to do 100 > quilt patches. This is not something you do on a whim. It's something > you'd better think about. It's turning a very fluid environment into a > unchangable, final thing.
what if you turned the forest of quilt patches into a forest of git trees? (essentially applying each patch against the baseline seperatly) would this make sense or be useful?
David Lang
-- There are two ways of constructing a software design. One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies. And the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. -- C.A.R. Hoare