From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 11:11:47 +0000 Subject: [GIT PULL] at91: fist cleanup branch for 3.5 In-Reply-To: References: <4F8D9037.9010401@atmel.com> <201204222032.48694.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: <201204231111.47448.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sunday 22 April 2012, Olof Johansson wrote: > There, I had this workflow: > > * git fetch > * tig FETCH_HEAD (look at contents, sanity check, etc: If something > looks wrong there's no merge to undo) > * git checkout -b subarch/topic FETCH_HEAD to create the pulled-in > topic branch > * git checkout next/topic > * git pull --log to get the original > URL in the merge commit > > Then the usual steps to get it into for-next and added to the contents file. Ok. I've now started skipping the 'checkout -b' step and just doing a 'git branch subarch/topic FETCH_HEAD', but the result is the same. > That way we do get the --log in the next/ branch as well as the tag > message, but only one merge changeset. It also has the benefit of > making it trivial to see when things have been merged with mainline > which branches can be pruned and not. > > The only thing missing from that workflow is the authenticity of the > subarch/topic branch once it's done, in case there is tinkering with > the arm-soc repo by some third party. I don't think that's a big risk > since we tend to diff the for-next contents before and after a > rebuild, so any delta in file contents will be caught. Since each > branch is documented in arm-soc-for-next-contents, we should have all > bases covered there. I also catch changes to the branches when I update my tree. > I guess we could tag every subarch/topic tip as well, but it'll get > pretty noisy with all them in the main repo. We have the option of > pushing those to a separate repo instead of the main arm-soc.git if we > wanted though. The idea I've had before is to just keep tags for each subarch/topic instead of branches, which would seperate them from one another, and we could leave the message in the tag without it cluttering the history. The main disadvantage I see in that is that I don't have a good workflow for maintaining remote tags yet. Arnd